tv Book TV CSPAN February 5, 2011 11:00am-12:00pm EST
that is when i travel around whether to hear or the midwest or the mountain west or wherever most of the people i talk to populate the political center. i think the united states is still generally is centrist country. maybe center right as opposed to center-left, but most people are in that date sweet spot in the center. the problem is that is not what the party wants. we need to find some way of bringing our political systems back in touch with reality. if that happens then i think we can be confident that we will see a return to the centers and and a bipartisan that is needed to fix a lot of the problems that we have a home which in turn is needed to deal with an international and diplomatic landscape that desperately needs a focused, capable, vital america. ..
another dilemma on the sidelines and training camp and playing sports myself and the overarching thing washington can learn from the world of sports is in sports, where someone is from, race, religion and ethnicity doesn't matter. what matters is can you help the team win. it is a meritocracy. everyone has people opportunity to compete and succeed. not guaranteed equal results but equal opportunity which is what our country was built on.
you would never see the way washington operates. distillery distributing from the winners to those who are not winners. if it were up to washington they would take one of the steelers's six civil for of is and say the sport detroit lions, they have never made it to a super bowl. let's give them a trophy. you have to learn and. there is accountability. and personal responsibility. you know who is winning and losing and in sports there's also a competitiveness. how you can prove yourself and make your team better. 14 america we need to be looking at what our economic policies, energy, education policies which are mostly stayed, not federal, what can we do if to make sure everyone in america has the opportunity to compete and succeed. i have a chapter in the book
that you never punt on first down. we have been hunting as a country on first down since the 1970s. most sports teams love to say we are number one. america actually is number one when it comes to energy resources thanks to our plentiful gas and oil resources but the leaders in washington look at these resources as a curse. any other country would consider them a blessing. we need to unleash our resources and the resources of our creative people rather than continue to get jerked around by a hostile dictators and cartels. >> is the competition getting fierce between teams republican and team democrat? >> it has been but that is decided by the people. fans decide who has the best idea and they get the vote depending on what the office is, two years or four years or six years and fans were not happy with washington. who has been cheering about
anything coming out of washington other than strasbourg who is a pitcher for the national baseball team there hasn't been much to cheer about but people love their high-school, college or pro teams. the people said we want change. they see what is going on in washington by any measurement whether it is the debt or lack of jobs. the policies in washington, bailouts under president bush or this health care monstrosity or stimulus spending that doesn't create jobs or counterproductive energy policy, none of that is working. so the voters, the people, the fans, the ticket holders, the owners of the government said we wanted change and they made that change in the election and those who have been elected, the number one thing is to keep their promises that they made to the people. that will at least start getting our country back in the right
direction. >> do you miss being in the arena? >> i do from time to time. susan and i have been very active in bob macdonald's race in helping out congressional candidates from morgan griffith in southwest virginia and at the beach and the south side and northern virginia. so we are involved. people have encouraged me to get back into it. we will consider that but right now i am trying to find a fresh, unique way of sharing ideas that make good sense that they understand that will make sure team america is in a better position to be offending so everyone has an opportunity to achieve their american dream. >> the after word is by j.c. watts and a former rams, deacon jones. >> last year he played with the
redskins. my brother and i call him my older brother deegan. my sister named chris second kid after deegan. the first after roman gabriel. my oldest daughter's favorite speaker. very nice for both of them. there are a lot of good stories. ronald reagan who got me interested in politics because as governor he would come to the l.a. rams football practice, here's a politician who knows what is important and asked to be chairman of young virginians for reagan in 1976. that got me involved in politics. ronald reagan became governor the same year we moved out from california. there are a lot of fun stories. whether you are baseball, football, hockey or nascar fan. >> what washington can learn from a world of sports. booktv covered a previous event
with governor allen the personal senator alan. you can watch the full event in its entire be on booktv dog -- >> it is more than economic history. it is but futures have transformed the financial system in ways that people don't fully appreciate and don't realize and that goes for traders as well as for people who are wrestling with these derivatives and understanding where they came from and what happened here is a story that really hasn't been told very much. i am not so silly as to think it is completely told in this book. i hope this is -- i scratched the surface of interesting history and it deserves a lot more attention and i have more stories than i know how to fit that didn't make it in so i hope
i can add to this record after this and other times because there really is so much. so i asked bill to talk because i was hoping he might be able to explain to people who aren't in the industry what i am talking about and because his family very much mirrors the story of the futures industry in chicago. maybe you could just start if you don't mind with what is the futures contract? >> a lot of people think it is a very mysterious type of business. futures contracts are essentially insurance products. that was the reason the industry first developed. futures contracts are a way to
offset risk in the heart of people who need to use commodities and people who produce commodities. a futures contract is a contract between a buyer and seller for a specific commodity, specific price for a specific future delivery date. the easiest way to explain it in terms of how it is used to offset risks, one of the simplest examples is take an airline company, someone who needs to use a lot of fuel on a regular basis. fuel prices go up, it can have a severe adverse impact on the possibility so an airline company realizing crude oil is at $80 a barrel and they are concerned it could go to $100 a barrel have the ability to purchase all the need knowing that it will be the final cost of the product. >> they use futures because they
have too much risk. they want to shut it off from other people. chicago has all these people who are not willing to take that risk. >> that is the other side. the real reason for having futures contract is for those who want to avoid risk but it is also providing a great opportunity for those who want to assume risk in search of progress. >> we are now talking with terence samuel, author of "the upper house: a journey behind the closed doors of the u.s. senate". in the middle of this book cover is an elevator button that says senators only. why is that? >> it tells a lot about the privileges of being a senator including the ability to ride in an elevator by yourself or just with colleagues but the book is essentially about a class of
people who win election to the senate and his adjustments they have to make to that life for the first year and a half or two years of trying to figure out how to be a u.s. senator in the modern sense. >> what kind of adjustments will the new senators be making? >> the same ones. the thing about the senate is it is completely inexplicable to anyone who has not been in it. that is the thing i learned to do in the book is a lot of people come to the senate and think they have ideas of how it works and find out over time that it is not exactly what they think and slowly but surely people who change the senate are changed by it. i suspect the 112th congress which like the 111th will find they will have some difficulty
achieving the things they promised during the campaign. >> given example of how the senate changes individuals. >> take the 2006 class that won at the end of the george bush presidency. a lot to do with iraq. a lot about ending of the war in iraq. a lot of republican filibuster preventing them from doing what they say they wanted to do. suddenly we are at a place where some of the people who were complaining about what republicans were doing wants to change that. there is a sense, the senator from tennessee bob corker talked about getting to the senate and being very frustrated and overtime saying these are very big issues with no real easy solution and so it probably does make more sense to do it slowly
and with as much consultation as possible. it will take longer and more frustrating than you think then that is okay. >> what is your background that you know so much about the senate? >> i was a congressional world report and covered the congress in general and got their exactly at the time the senate went 50/50 and so this grand agent arcane institution came down to the personalities of two people trying to make a work in the minority and majority leader's, trent lott and tom daschle and got completely fascinated by how institution as central to government as we think the senate is comes down to just two guys trying to work out.
>> terence samuel is author of "the upper house: a journey behind the closed doors of the u.s. senate" is the name of a book. >> up next, david eisenhower discuss president eisenhower's farewell address delivered on january 17th, 1951, in which he warned about the growth of the military-industrial complex in the united states. william hartung chronicles the rise of the military contractor lockheed martin. david eisenhower's latest going home to glory looks at president eisenhower's life after he left the white house. their conversation takes place at barnes and noble booksellers in new york city. it is just over 45 minutes. >> thank you for coming out. i will do my best impersonation of dwight eisenhower which doesn't make sense since i'm
dealing one who's not an eisenhower but i thought it would be good to give the section of a speech that is relevant to our discussion because sometimes you only hear a sentence of it. this is a few minutes of it. it comes about midway. until the latest of our world conflicts the united states had no arms industry. american makers could with time and as required make swords as well. now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defence. we have been compelled to create a permanent industry of vast proportions. added to this, three million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. we annually spend another security more than the net income of all united states corporations. this conjunction of an immense military establishment and large arms industry is new in the american experience. the total influence, economic and political, even spiritual is
felt in every city, every state house, every office of federal government. we recognize the need for this development yet we must not fail to comprehend its great implications. our toiled in personal resources and livelihood are all involved. so is the structure of our society. the council of government people and we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or on sought by the military-industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists. we must never let this combination in danger our liberty through democratic processes. we should take nothing for granted. only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can encourage the proper meshing of the industrial and military machine with our peaceful methods and goals so security of liberty may prosper together. that is what we are talking about and working from. david will give some context and i will talk a little bit about
some contemporary applications of the concept. >> thanks a lot for that introduction. it is a pleasure to be here at barnes and noble. we are thrilled to be here in new york city. excuse me? oh. a [applause] thank you. i want to congratulate bill on the completion of his book. this is a history of the rise of the military-industrial complex from the 1930s forward and development of the phenomenon that dwight eisenhower drew attention to in this speech. in which he warns against the unwanted acquisition of influence by the military-industrial complex. i will provide a little bit of background and context about this speech and how my book picks up from a.
this was given 50 years ago and describes in the excerpts a permanent condition which developed within his lifetime in national affairs. he draws attention to it. he acknowledges that the problem of standing mobilization is something that has compelled -- to we are compelled to face. this is not something we do as a matter of choice. we are compelled to face. he does not offer specific prescriptions. there is no 5 point plan here for restraining the military-industrial complex. in fact he comes up with an interesting and draws a broader prescription from calling for an alert citizenry. calling on the political branches of government and all of us in daily lives to follow these events and be aware of it
and to understand that a military industrial complex will acquire a certain momentum in national affairs but they must justify themselves as we justify other things as well and i believe your book highlights some stories that i am aware of. the fitzgerald story in the pentagon. a senator from wisconsin that i remember well and so forth and other clashes between the military industrial complex and political branches of government. to give you some background on the speech my own book picks of 65 hours after it was given and i would stress a different aspect of it by way of background. this has to do is alert citizenry. going home to glory opens shortly after the speech is given and they're driving back to gettysburg 50 years ago in the winter chill of the day john kennedy was inaugurated president of the united states.
these are remarkable times. in 2000, martin matters, a professor, told teachers of rhetoric in the united states on the outstanding speeches delivered by americans in the 20th century. what were they and on that list wise nor's farewell address stand 18 out of 100. out of thousands of speeches given. one of the top 20. on that list, the john kennedy inaugural stands three. these are two speeches delivered within 65 hours of one another. the confluence of the greatest inaugural of the 20th century and perhaps the greatest farewell address ever given by an american president draws attention to the significance of this transition. what the transition was the personal wartime leadership
yielding the reins of power, there's a generational shift that happens in 1961. the other thing that is significant that occurs in the wake of perhaps the closest election of the 20th century. and it is an election that produced a 50/50 split and i think the dignity of these two statements, the kennedy inaugural and eisenhower farewell, the quality of the expression in these two speeches are worthy of a democratic transition. we were able to overcome a great divide in that period and find a way forward during that transition. a very successful transition. and is a nostalgic speech because of the pre-eminence of the united states that the eisenhower farewell address presumes. pre-eminence of the united states the kennedy inaugural presidents as well. this is the pre-eminence that
may never be repeated in international history. there was a connection between the eisenhower farewell and the kennedy inaugural. that connection is citizenship. the eisenhower speech is in the final analysis about citizenship. his prescription, an alert citizenry assumes something about citizenship, his words voice and the way he addressed the american people make assumptions about citizens which are also made in the kennedy speech which serves a different purpose. eisenhower is reflecting on citizenship in the changing context of his lifetime. born in 1890 and raised in rural kansas where everybody is a self-sufficient farmer in a self-sufficient rural area. citizenship works in a certain sort of way. by this time he is leaving office in 1960 we have entered the computer age, the space age, the atomic age, world population
has tripled. america is an international power and the world has gotten very complicated. in this complicated circumstances the question is how those citizenship work and he identifies barriers to it. in the military-industrial complex, a vested interest drives decisions and potentially corrupts democratic processes. john kennedy's inaugural address is about the changing patterns of citizenship and is offering himself in his new administration as a model of citizenship. how does a new frontiers and confront the challenges of the world. the timelessness of the speech. agreed farewell speech timelessness as does an inaugural. they are versus an kinds of speeches that are ceremonial and ceremonial speech, the
eisenhower address in an interesting way, i will summarize this quickly. the early drafts of it was in progress for a long time. the planning began in may of 1959. was planned for 18 months. i have seen versions of this speech, there are now news stories that another set of draughts appeared in the files of someone involved in the drafting of its so that fills out a picture. the picture that i saw is the early draft of the eisenhower farewell, very forward looking. and i think they reflect the sense that he is losing ground, his administration is losing ground after the democrats win the 1960 election they reflect the disappointment with the outcome of the 1960 election. sour grapes of the speak. he is warning the country against successors who may not
have a judgment. somebody gets to the president in the drafting or editors to him that this is not the path to a fare well. the fare well is to ease the transition, to make it easier so you have another set of draft with warnings were modified and taken back. and finally this crystallizes into the great farewell address that it is when he sees his warning about specific prescriptions for the months and years to come and allows his gaze to look back over his career and extract lessons from his 50 years in public service and to formulate from that some insights and prescriptions that will stand as timeless. something we may even be talking about 50 years later as we are tonight. interestingly the kennedy speech developed the same way. all the pressure on kennedy was to acknowledge the closeness of the election, issue an appeal
for unity, bring as many republicans as possible into his government. he took those suggestions very seriously early in the drafting of that speech. finally because of the logic that his position and his responsibility, what takes over in the final drafts is a decision to look forward. eisenhower is surrendering power. kennedy is assuming power. kennedy's obligation to win. he looks forward and eisenhower looks back and they stand back-to-back. these speeches become timeless. they both aim at our culture to conservatives. eisenhower saying i you going to allow your cells has a lead to be dominated by a vested interest, by military-industrial complex we let that stand in way of citizenship? kennedy says are you going to allow laws to acquit all of us in our daily lives of
responsibility for what we are and can be as citizens? sort of in this spirit that the torch passes between two generations who have a great deal in common. it also passes from one party to the next in which leaders did disagree. it passes in a memorable colorful month, january of 1961. very different mood to. the kennedy inaugural -- inaugural speech, kennedy was a cautious speech. almost as though you have visions of the roman triumph where the concord exults in the splendor of a triumph but there are voices of caution. i remember reminding that all glory can be fleeting. this is how the speeches interact in january of 1961. they contain a timeless message
about the future. kennedy asks would any generation trade places with those taking power in 1961? the question today is what we do so today? the answer then was no. the answer today is no. the future as demonstrated by the past is ours to make. depends on us. it depends ultimately on our willingness and determination to ex of responsibility for our lives and face the future. that is the moral of eisenhower's for well. these two extraordinary speeches that happened exactly 50 years ago. thank you. [applause] >> i think that gives us a good context. i'm going to talk about the military-industrial complex today. i will look at recent battle on capitol hill.
the battle over the f-22 combat aircraft. the most expensive fighter plane ever built. bill to fight a soviet fighter that was never built because the soviet union fell apart. and something the obama administration ferry much wanted to end the program and members of congress and lockheed martin had other ideas. ultimately lockheed martin lost the battle but it is instructive why they lost, how it was fought. it is a glimpse into the industrial complex at work. and a surprise ending. so i am going to do this by way of some excerpts from my book. this is the very beginning. it is a striking and. and intimidating combat aircraft in the background with the slogan up front in all capital letters. three hundred million protected. 95,000 employed. the ad for lockheed martin's
f-22 fighter plane is part of the last gasp effort to save one of its most profitable weapons from being terminated in standard budget parlance. it scores times in print, on political websites, even in washington's metro. one writer at the washington post joked that lockheed martin's bras of full-page ads was the main thing keeping the paper afloat. and jumping ahead of a little bit, as soon as there was even a whisper of possibility that the f-22 program would be stopped at only 187 planes, about what the pentagon wanted, only half of what they were striving for, the company started racking up big numbers. by early 2009 months in advance of president obama's first detailed budget submission, lockheed martin and its partners had lined up 44 senators and 200 members of the house of representatives to sign onto a save thereafter letter.
at the heart of the lobbying campaign was jobs, jobs, jobs in 44 states or so the company claimed. lockheed martin's public-relations barely mentioned with is the f-22 was needed to defend the country but the argument was in the background but wasn't the driving force. the ads got more specific as time went on showing people at work on components of the play with legends like 2,205 jobs in connecticut. 1 25 skilled machinists in montana. 50 titanium manufacturing jobs in ohio. 30 hydraulic systems specialists in mississippi. all that was missing were ads for 132 lobbyists, washington d.c.. they probably would have gone around to it if they needed to. the importance of this battle was laid out by john mccain on the senate floor. there was an amendment to stop
the increase in f-22 spending that he and senator carl levin of michigan brought together. this is what he said about the amendment. this amendment is the most impact fully manned and i have seen on any issue but the issue of the fence. it boils down to whether we're going to continue business as usual of once the weapons system gets into full production it never dies or whether we are going to take the necessary steps to reform the acquisition process in this country. he ended if quoting two letters from the white guys in our absences from public speech about the unwarranted influence of the arms lobby and the need for an alert and knowledgeable citizenry to keep it in its rightful place. mccain suggested the only addition to the speech would be to replace military industrial complex with military-industrial congressional complex in recognition of the role of congress in funding unnecessary weapons systems like the f-22. that was the flavor of the
debate. the question is if they have all this power why did they lose? there are a couple reasons. first, secretary of defense gates, republican holdover from the bush administration made an excellent case against it. he said first of all, there is no mission. here we are fighting two wars and not using its in either of those wars. if we look ahead to china, even if we don't build a single f-22 we will have 20 to 25 times as many sophisticated fighter planes as china has, 15 or 20 years down the road. so whether it was the current mission or future mission, he made a good case of why we didn't need it and also the price. he said it was obscenely expensive which is true. $50 million a copy. the second faint that caused them to lose was bipartisanship. john mccain and barack obama agreed on one thing. we don't need this plane.
maybe the last thing they will agree on. obama himself made a threat to veto any defense bill that included it. this was unprecedented not only in his presidency but never as far as we can tell. there had never been a veto targeted on one specific system like this. then the administration across the country twisting arms of democrats who were leaning to vote for the plane to get them to vote against and so this is the surprise. although they lost a didn't lose money on the deal because even as they reduce the f-22 by $4 billion they increased the f 35. by $4 billion. secretary of defense gates made a statement that i have taken good -- [inaudible] >> the f 35 not only was
increased by $4 billion but it had jobs and companies in many of the same states and districts so they were replacing a 35 spending for f-22 spending. in a sense it was the exception that proves the rule. they couldn't get it done without throwing a bone to the military-industrial complex. $4 billion bohn at that. that is just one example of the resilience of a company like lockheed martin which comes from its size. it gets $36 billion a year of our tax money which amounts to $260 per household. so i have been empowered to collect those checks this evening. i will cast them to lockheed martin. if you come to get your books i'd have your checkbook ready. it is also a company in addition to size that is involved in many aspects of our lives you might not expect. not only does it make weapons but cluster bombs, nuclear
weapons, combat ships, fighter planes and also works with the cia, national security agency, fbi, department of homeland security, census bureau, pretty much any agency of government we interact with. probably lockheed martin is involved either in surveillance or information processing or another essential aspect of that agency's operation. i wrote a piece recently on the web that describes lockheed martin's shadow government. i think it remains to be seen whether they are going to serve that role or not but there is that danger given their involvement in so many aspects of the government and our lives. that is what i have to say to get the conversation started. do you have any other thoughts you might share? >> i was struck by that passage early in your book where you
describe how john mccain wanted to insert a congressional military-industrial congressional complex. that was actually in one of the drafts of the eisenhower military-industrial complex speech. they're going to include congressional complex and it was struck from the draft because of the logic of it. the speech is really directed at congress. how affectively do you and i pose as alert citizens to bring lockheed martin to bend them to our purposes. we read books but in the final analysis we are depending on is the vigor of congressional oversight and the strength of our political branches of the eisenhower warning is directed to congress. it is a call on congress to
exercise oversight and to represent us and not fall into the trap of representing them. for that reason this very what john mccain is a living demonstration of is congress really is the key variable here so event is the john mccain speech and the eisenhower speech which we are conscious of. >> on the question of oversight i would say senator proxmiremeyer said the gold standard. he was closely involved in the lockheed martin story. in the 60s they built the transport aircraft which was supposed to be able to take large numbers of troops and material anywhere in the world on short notice. lucky described it as a flying military base and there was some discussion whether it is was a good idea, if we could get anywhere quickly, intervene
a loan guarantee to bailout the company because it was an airliner business. he lost by one vote in the senate and it was the jobs issue that made the difference. senator cranston buttonholed to senator from montana with just one vote to go and sit you want to be the guy responsible for people losing their jobs and he said no. so the jobs argument keeps recurring. but people were not going to let them get in the way of doing what was necessary. [inaudible] >> white eisenhower -- if he were alive today and see the military-industrial complex and i assume the industrial complex
means the connection to the corporations and thanks. what do you think he would say about it today? >> it would have been hard to imagine what we have today. we spend twice as much on the military has when eisenhower left office. the company like lockheed martin is made of 18 companies that came together to form this large one company. you have lockheed martin, northrop grumman and boeing, the bulk of the defense spending going to be large contractors. i am sure the sheer size of the chris the leawood not have imagined it and in terms of what i talked about before, everything the government does whether it is outsourcing intelligence or accounting of tax revenue, in that sense it is quite different. in the eisenhower's day,
techniques were occurring. things like advertising weapons. things like the revolving door from the military into the defense industry and lobbied their own colleagues. many of the same tools exist now for influence. the amount of money being spent, size of the company, amount of money at stake is significantly different than it was under eisenhower. >> looking at others things as well. look at the military-industrial complex and you can see bill has put his finger on this and other articles i have read on this. the way of the military-industrial complex works today is somewhat different. also look at other things like cutting campaign finance and how campaigns are financed in our
country. what percentage of citizens turned out elections. how vigorous is the democratic process? when i say look back on his career, his life and times and this is seen as a classical fare well here is a farewell with in the final analysis about the great riddles of his lifetime. the riddle that face the wartime leadership, how is it in the early mid 20th-century we have such progress on one side and such horrors on the other. the great depression, world war ii, the cold war and all the threats that unlike sorts of damocles over western civilization as he is passing power to kennedy in 1961. a supreme commander in europe made a study of his adversary as well as everybody he went to war
with. the reason a country like germany became totalitarian, the reason europe lost its loral is people ceased to be citizens. they withdrew from public affairs and allowed people to make decisions for them. they yielded to the loudest voices and most irresistible looking movements. they simply stepped out. this is a phenomenon that is common throughout europe. again, building from his experience, the real moral is it is the vigor of the democrats if process and oversight, defense industries organize themselves the best they can. they are going to retain military people. military people know their business. there is an interlocking directorate be delayed complex legal and we are, quote,
compelled to have one. the question is how vigorously are we overseeing? >> will you agree with abraham, ski's theory that the cold war was caused by forestall lying about how the soviet union was getting ready to make war with the u.s.? or their cause of those murders and shut him up. >> for me that is easy. my answer is no. >> the question is did forestall cause the cold war? the cold war was under way before james forrestal became secretary of defense. my grandfather was acting as in formal chairman and was detailed by truman. to co to win and taken under his
wing, as forestall signed onto a military that led to a suicide. my grandfather knew forced all well and is writings about him are very interesting. forrestal was someone who was listened to in government but he was not -- his views were considered alarmist within the government. the real causes of the cold war which a deeper, the best -- it is not forestall. it was can's telegram in 1946 that lays out what is causing it and what the american and western side is going to be, with great patience. this was written by someone who spent his life in the soviet union and understand the
dynamics not only of averaging but also western dynamics and opposition to it. he and other people who had sensible views on the cold war which predominated for the most part understood that war could be avoided. the danger of war was ever present because of the soviet experience because of great losses in europe, great devastation that war caused, a conflict of some kind was going to and sue. >> yes? over there. wait for the microphone. [inaudible] >> i was thinking in terms of
the claim of kennedy, the missile gap. i was wondering if there was some evidence of chagrin on the part of eisenhower being frustrated and put in the corner with inspiration that there was a missile gap. if you find evidence of that. >> very much so. what did he mean this morning? did he mean the full import of it. his second term doesn't make sense except in light of his farewell address. when they began planning this address in 1959 they planned ten others. this was to be the capstone of these a dresses and what they were responding to at the time was the public psychology created by the soviet sputnik success in october of 1957 and the cries of missile gap. there was a feeling in the eisenhower administration that the voices of reason we're being
overwhelmed by pentagon generated propaganda, by vested interests that wanted to keep a cold war going because it was good for what ever and they felt there for that they were going to inject a voice of reason and this speech stems from that. what is missing in this speech might have been present in earlier versions of it if my recollection is correct. there were many drafts of it years ago. i think the tone of regret and here and now is drained out of the final versions of this speech. this speech rises above it and puts it in a wider context. this is here to stay. when we organized the national government and acknowledge our energy independence we don't have independent states any more. we have a national transportation system we
personally had a national food distribution system. we have a national medical system. everything is national and we are interdependent on one another. this is something that has been chosen. a way of life we have chosen which is different from nineteenth century. citizenship is going to work differently. military-industrial complex is simply part of this. we just have to understand the essence or principles of citizenship have not changed. we are in the final analysis responsible for our own alliance and active members, political society. looking back that i am emphasizing, dwight eisenhower's town of abilene had more in common with middle ages than it had in common with the society that he was president of. in the 1950s. this is more qualitative change than any society experienced in
history. he reflect on it. the speech reflects because we are talking about this very thing 50 years later and we will be talking about it for decades to come. just a second. the other point being eisenhower really held the line until sputnik. he kept spending relatively level even during the period of anti communism. he stood up to the bomber lobby and to some extent of the missile lobby even though there was insubordination in his own ranks. the secretary of the air force testifying on behalf of a bomber that eisenhower did not build. the struggles were very concrete with the lobbies and that generated the rhetoric of the speech. from his own experience. >> when i study lockheed and think about of the concerns of others citizenry one cannot help but realize the amount of
corporate lobbyists in washington today been a congressperson could spend the day meeting with lobbyists who come to visit them. it is impossible not to think 50 years later to change the military industrial complex and call it the military industrial congressional complex and in relation to those comments, the fact that this company has control of homeland security systems, postal information systems, the census. there seems to be absolutely no concern among congressional representatives about the need for checks and balances. >> i think that is right. when i did the book i was surprised how many aspects of our life and the company is involved in. there was a period when privatisation was all the rage and it was felt private
companies could do things more efficiently and effectively. that is hard to see how you get that result from a company that has huge cost overruns in the defense business and has been a mixed result in terms of performance. the reach of the company, lot of times the people in government who have the expertise to monitor what these companies the doing. if we're going to ride herd on these companies at the moment is something that doesn't exist. if you have the cia as a half contract employee, you have people who work for private companies running agents and helping write the president's daily breeze and doing things that were really considered governmental functions, bad enough to keep tabs on an intelligence agency with all the secrets involved but if you had a corporate layer and confidentiality is more difficult.
>> right here? behind you. is there a microphone? we are waiting but the question they're going to be really good. >> good evening. thank you very much. [inaudible] a wonder if you could shed light on the connection between the interstate highway system, general motors and the fox the interstate highway system was purportedly developed as a national defense strategy? >> it was called the national defence highway act. there was a notion that in a pinch it could land bombers on it.
but more importantly it was a way to justify an important investment infrastructure. if we had a national defense subway act we would have a better subway. lockheed martin failed to put cameras in our subways. just as a little advertisement. >> i was going to -- the thing i could add to that is shortly after armistice day, early 1919, i don't know if he has reverted to what ever but dwight eisenhower four years out of west point volunteered for a transcontinental convoy that was commissioned by testing the american highway system. they spend 4 months or five months going from washington to
sacramento. it took four five months to do that trip and their mission was to develop an assessment about the american road system. this was a historic journey. eisenhower was on it. when he had the power to accelerate a national highway system as part -- the infrastructure, in 1954/55. this was something he was all too happy to do to help that goes through and also he was justified in military terms as many programs were in the 1950s. this was cold war era but an infrastructure project, something that was a product of many years of planning shelved by world war ii. the roosevelt administration planned that way. it was in fulfillment of a
vision that planners in washington and the corps of engineers and others had for making the united states a truly continental economic system is what we have. >> one more question. if you could just speak loudly. >> speak louder? >> wait for the microphone. your question is worth waiting for. >> john mccain and obama, result of their actions so cynical that the program that was cut, money was added back. in working on your book do you see any real desire given our needs to control the budget, is
there any sincere effort, anybody who is really trying to cut back on the military-industrial complex in the government today? >> there is just the beginning of some debate and hope. representative barney frank joined with ron paul to come up with a proposal to cut $100 billion from the military budget. $100 billion per year over the next ten years. they have 50 other members of congress signed up with them. paul is of interest because he is a favorite of the tea party and his son is called for cutting military spending. this is tied to the notion of deficit-reduction which has its own issues whether we should be reducing the deficit in the middle of a recession and so forth. if there is going to be a deficit reduction plan there are portions at work saying the
military should take at least its fair share which is 50% of its discretionary budget. that would be a substantial reduction. this is a fight that is going to happen and the arms lobby is going to fight back. lockheed martin is the biggest donor to the new incoming chair of the house armed services committee and the biggest donor to democrat daniel inouye who has has columns of the number-1 guy for earmarks. he might try to give back with the other. there will be a battle and a debate which is something we have not seen in the last ten years i would think. >> thank you wall. [applause] >> this event was hosted by barnes and noble booksellers in
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on