“My entire life has been given to thisnone thing, my country and my profession.”nTwelve years later, he cited “mynfamily” and “America” as “the only realnpassions of my life.” Countless referencesnto “duty” and “responsibility” fillnthe diaries.nJrrior to the end of World War II,nit is true, Eisenhower evidences no wellthought-outnor articulated political philosophy.nBy early 1953, though, he hadndeveloped and repeatedly expressed anworld view that would remain essentiallynunchanged throughout his Presidency.nDuring thirty-five years of diary-keeping,nEisenhower only once inserted annewspaper clipping into the text, namelynthe January 4,1950 farewell editorial ofnthe New York Sun. He referred in particularnto a concluding paragraph, whichnread:nThroughout [the Sun ‘s career it hasnsupported constitutional government,nsound money, reasonable protectionnfor American industry, economy innpublic expenditures, preservation ofnthe rights and responsibilities of thenseveral states, free enterprise, goodncitizenship, equality before the law,nand has upheld all the finer Americanntraditions. It has opposed indecencynand rascality,” public and private. It hasnfought Populism, Socialism, Communismn, governmental extravagance, thenencroachments of bureaucracy andnthat form of government paternalismnwhich eats into the marrow of privateninitiative and industry.nEisenhower flatly declared: “Thesenare the things in which I believe.” Henalso despaired that such principles werenincreasingly discarded, yet personallynvowed to “go down fighting.” At otherntimes in the 1945-53 period, Eisenhowernstated that American strengthnrested on faith, free enterprise, moralnprobity and necessary military strength;ndescribed “moral regeneration” and an”revival of patriotism” as necessary;nlabeled capitalism as “essential” to democracy;ntermed federal aid to privateneducation “immoral”; saw the federalngovernment—in the name of “social sencurity”— taking ever-greater power overnpeople’s daily lives; praised “Americanism”nwhile railing against “the handoutnstate” and “the regulatory spirit”;nbecame persuaded that it was his dutyn”to unseat the New Deal-Fair Dealnbureaucracy in Washington”; and concludednthat free government was necessarilynbased on “some form of deeplyn•felt religious faith.”nEven Eisenhower’s efforts to restrainnmilitary spending were not born (a langan’s widely attacked defense projectionsnfor the mid-1980’s.)nAgain reflecting the conservativenconscience of their author, the Eisenhowerndiaries convey a deep pessimismnabout the future: specifically, a sensenthat the nation and the world were beginningnto spin out of control and despairnover the failure of a new generationnof responsible leaders to emerge. Inn1951, while commanding NATO, Eisenhowernlamented over the “unworthynmen” who guided Western destinies inn”Eisenhower revi^onism is full of nostalgia for the 1950’s and it is certainly truenthat if you were white, male, and middle class or better, it was the best decade ofnthe century.”n— The New RepublicnMcGovern or Carter) out of’distrustnof the military mind, sympathies fornthe world revolution or feaF of Americannmotives. They rested instead on anthoroughly conservative fear of the dangersnwhich a large defense establishmentnposed to the fiscal and social arrangementsnof a free society. Ike wasnaware that “If we are not [internally]nhealthy, we can communicate no healthnto the world”; in the face of militarynfinancial demands, he ‘worried aboutn”the poor tax payer.” Most significantly,nhe argued that “the purpose of Americanis to defend a way of life rather thannmerely to defend property, territory,nhomes or lives,” and concluded “thatnexcessive expenditure for nonproductiven(defense) items could, in the long run,ndestroy the American economy.” At antime when American liberals werenclamoring for higher defense budgetsnas a stimulus to the economy, Eisenhowernfound early in his Presidencynthat his views on taxation, defensenspending and domestic policy actuallyncoincided to a surprising degree withnthose held by Senator Robert Taft, thenerstwhile leader of the Republican farnright. (Even so, it is worth noting thatnEisenhower’s now-praised “lean” defensenbudgets absorbed a significantlynhigher share of the nation’s Gross NationalnProduct than would Ronald Rea-nnnLondon, Washington and Paris and “desperately”nwished for “new, young, andnvirile civil and military leaders devotednonly to their respective countries, tondecency, and to security.” In 1956, afterna long conversation with Dulles, Eisenhowernsuggested that “the world is onnthe verge of an abyss” and that they wouldnprobably be succeeded by men of lessnexperience, prestige, intellectual capacitynand moral courage. “What willnhappen.”” he asked with a sense ofnresignation.nIn sum, Eisenhower’s self-styledn”middle-of-the-road” philosophy is illsuitednfor revision into closet liberalism.nEisenhower’s appropriately admirednsense of proportion and judgment (concerningnIndochina, he noted as early asn1951 that “no military victory is possiblenin that kind of theater” and that” a unionnof minds and hearts” among the Americannpeople was indispensable to the successofamilitarycommitmentnanywhere)nwas rooted in traditional conservativencaution and a distrust of recklessly enterednideological crusades. A man ofnhonor, Eisenhower saw in Joe McCarthynan opportunist and a scoundrel. Yet Ikenalso had no tolerance for governmentnemployees of questionable loyalty, andnhe quietly dismissed thousands fromnsensitive posts. Eisenhower did not at-nJaniiary/February 1982n