RateItAll: The Opinion Network

He was a pretty good president because he did no harm. His farewell speech about the "militrary-industrial complex" is as relevant today as it was decades ago.

A War hero, kept U.S. out of war while he was in office. America remained pretty prosperous during his terms, he came up with using the highways for civialin travel. I'de say he was above average.

The greatest president that ever was.

Overrated (see Washington) and not very good, but gets one point added for suggesting we be wary of the "militray-industrial complex."

No doubt about it, the historians are upgrading Ike to great. We had peace, prosperity and general tranquility. Ike was smart and knew enough not to get involved when the French lost Indochina, or USSR invaded Hungary, or the Suez Crisis and oh so many more. He made a couple of dumb moves. What president doesn't but nothing major. We sure could use him now. He ended the bone-headed Korean War and he would get us out of Iraq tomorrow.

Often Ike is forgotten in todays world, but in 1960 when he left office he had around/if not more than a 65% approval rating. He was what the country needed after two presidents whose main focus had been wars. I like Ike!

One of, if not the greatest United States General. He led the United States through a period of peace while the rest of the world was in turmoil. He started the policy of "containment" which was used for several decades after Eisenhower left office.

Ike was a true conservative and a stand-up individual. Many people see the period 1953-1960 as a time of peace and innocence. In some ways that is true; but the world situation was a boiling caldron at the time...height of the cold war, wars in Africa and southeast Asia, and much of the population of Central and South America caught in crossfires between left and right wing dictators. If FDR could be called the last true leader of the old world, Ike was the first leader of the new.

One of the best presidents of the twentieth century, who gave us eight years of peace and prosperity as well as the magnificent Interstate Highway System; largely underappreciated by historians because of his mainly self-effacing, behind-the-scenes style of governing, it recently became known that he was very much a "hands-on" leader. His Farewell Address to the Nation is one of the great ones, and should have been heeded.

Ike gets high grades for guiding the country through the benign 1950's- and his opposition to the conservative wing of the Republican party who expected him to dismantle much of FDR and Trumans 'New Deal' and 'Fair Deal' programs. IKE was smart enough to know the American people now expected these social safety nets. He also warned Americans about the growth and power of the 'Military Industrial Complex' and its abuses and intrusions into Americans liberties.

He was able to revert going back to the republican party of the past- which was no safety nets for anyone but the filthy rich-

Hw was at least honest and a great wartime leader.

Eisenhower loved to cook. He once developed a recipe for vegetable soup that is 894 words long and includes the stems of nasturtiums as an ingredient.

Good strong leader. Initiated the Interstate system, which is a milestone in our history of transportation.

Though he didn't do enough to stop the growth of government, he did slow it down. And he continued the foreign policy precedent Truman left him. However, he didn't do enough to root out communists--a very real threat--in America. If I were to rank all forty-two presidents from best to worst, Eisenhower would rank somewhere around twelve or thirteen.

Though history casts him as a rather inert world leader, perhaps the Fifties were fabulous because IKE kept us out of briar patches like Vietnam and the Middle East. The noted 50's expert Arthur Fonzie Fonzarelli described him best: I like Ike. My bike likes Ike.

The Man from Abilene was a truly great military leader and president. Also... I don't recall him owning any slaves.

Even though I'm very Democratic Eisenhour can have a good rating, the Demorcrats had been in office for twenty years which just isn't ok, it means your democracy isn't working.

Ike was a great General but lacked knowledge as a politician. He became president only because the people wanted him to. He realized that promoting the peace which he struggled for as president, was just the the challenge he needed. He hated war and it showed dramatically by being elected twice.

my dad's a life-long Republican and union member(go figure),I was a teen ager in the '50's,and even according to his accounts today,the 1950's were about as hard of times as any this country's ever seen,that being said, why would anyone trust a republikan to hold office?and the reason republicans don't like pickles,is 'cause they can't get their head in the jar.

Great wartime general, responsible for the Interstate Highway System, supported early Civil Rights movement. Critics called him a lazy, stupid fool, but just like GW Bush, he governed by committee, and used a false sense of low expectations to defeat political enemies and usher in a great era of American prosperity and advancement.

Stalemated the Korean war. Assisted with civil right legislation and had a pretty easy 8 years in office. He did help to establish NASA which catapulted our science and technology industries into the future. Sent peacekeepers to Vietnam in the late 50s. He was at the end and the early beginnings of two wars which many questioned. He is average.

Led U.S. through the most economically sound eight years in U.S. history. Laid groundwork for civil rights advancements. Ended Korean war quickly.

I don't like Ike.

History has shown Dwight David Eisenhower to be a good President and an able administrator. Looked on early as being somehow unremarkable (like Ronald Reagan had been shortly after he left office), Eisenhower has risen in Presidential rank. He was influential and forceful in defending the Constitution, especially during the admission of several African American students against the threat of violence by both by citizens and a segregationalist Arkansas state government in 1957 at Central High School in Little Rock. Perhaps not the most pro-active President there ever was, Eisenhower greatest legacy might have been the appointment of Earl Warren to the Chief Justiceship of the Unted States (though he is said to have been largely disappointed by the Caifornia Republican's liberal stances on criminal cases).

Average. He did appoint an excellent Supreme Court.

Eisenhower deserves more credit than he generally recieves for ending the Korean War as briskly as he did. We were actually fighting China and I think the long term damage to world peace of a bloodbath between Chinese and American forces lasting through the fifties would be difficult to overestimate. He also deserves credit for the highway system, a vast expansion of social security, disability insurance, and for cautious but real progress on civil rights, including appointing consistently pro-civil rights judges to the Federal courts, thus laying the groundwork for more progress in the sixties.

1. Ike issued the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the desegregation of Little Rock High School, against the tide of the current politics -- so I believe its unfair to say he was completely spineless on civil rights issue is unfair. Could he have done more? Sure, we could have ideally had the civil rights movement under the Harding Administration if soceity didn't shy from change.

His hair smelled like peaches!

Dwight Eisenhower (aka Ike) is a difficult president to analyze. Ike cannot be considered good or great because he really had no major national crisis to which to respond notwithstanding the ongoing threat from the Soviets. He did the right thing for those times, which was basically nothing, save for natural national growth (eg the interstate system and space program). Now it should be said that doing nothing is quite something for a president. One who holds such power is very tempted to use it whether the exercise of such power is advisable or not. Some have said that Eisenhower exacerbated the Cold War situation, and I wish those comments had been more detailed. From my reading, the hands and actions of Ike (and his predecessor Truman) were largely tied by the actions and decisions of FDR (eg FDR's agreement to remove the allied troops from Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia that negated this substantial bargaining chip with the Soviets). (Note this was done by Gen. Eisenhower during the Truman Administration pursuant to the previous designs of FDR despite Churchill's pleas to keep the troops in place absent Soviet good faith adherence to the overall agreements.) People also criticize Ike for slow movement on civil rights; however, fast movements can often cause extreme backlash (eg Iran). Nevertheless when one looks at the entire picture, Ike is much like Clinton who both get credit for not really messing anything up, but restraint can only merit three stars at best. Without a true crisis, a president's failure or greatness is never determined.

This moron serves as a prime example of military men proving to be really lame as U.S. Presidents, following in the dim tradition of Franklin Pierce, Zack Taylor and U.S. Grant. Essentially a do-nothing figurehead who read Zane Grey westerns and dozed in the Oval Office while crucial and dynamic social, political and cultural trends bubbled furiously under the surface of bland, vanillawafer 1950s America. Dragged his feet on civil rights, initiated America's involvement in that decades-long debacle known as the Viet Nam war and did very little to calm the public hysteria regarding the supposed Communist threat (which was all fabricated nonsense, after all) that gripped this idiotic nation in a big way for over a half dozen years. He also was an ardent supporter of the interstate highway system, which was a somewhat good idea, but had onerous repercussions in that Americans became overdependent on their automobiles, spoiled actually, leading to a number of permanent problems that just aren't going away anytime soon, folks (i.e., the U.S. being held hostage by OPEC nations, suburban sprawl, overtaxed national infrastructure, environmental concerns, etc.). He warned us about the negative influence the military-industrial complex would likely inflict on the country, yet did nothing to head these entities off at the pass. Actually, I can't think of a single program or initiative undertaken by this guy's administration that had enduring positive effect on this country or our way of life. In fact, this guy was so underwhelming that a mediocre horse's butt like John Kennedy seemed lightyears more advanced than Eisenhower in comparison, merely because the Great Philanderer came along immediately in the wake of the doddering, geriatric General. I'll say one thing about Dimbulb Dwight, however: his interest in golf served as a boon to that pointless and retarded game/industry back in the day, setting a primeval precedent for those unathletic, 60 oz. steak-eating, martini-swilling, cigar-smoking, titty bar habituents currently clogging the freeways and greens of those terribly boring and wholly unnecessary trifles known as country clubs and golf courses.

Eisenhower was a solid President, he handled it right in most cases. No President is perfect, but he had a good sense of the office and always handled himself with the utmost professionalism. Most people consider the 1950's a conformist period with a conformist leader at the helm, but lets examine the record a little more closely. It could very well be argued that America was at the top of her power during this time. Whenever a foreign policy question arose, Eisenhower would always ask is it good for America. A very simple value, but it rings true even today. Some on this board claim that Eisenhower was never tested, but he had taken huge risks throughout his career. The Landing at Normandy was Ike's call and it was one that even he had doubts about until the last minute, only at that moment did he decide to take the big risk. His Presidency was relatively quiet, but the crises that he had to deal with were handled well, namely the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Britain, France and Israel had coordinated an attack on Egypt, who had nationalized the Suez Canal in an attempt to get the British stakeholders out of the country. Eisenhower realized that we would be put at a bad position with the Arabs if we did supported the invasion. The British failed because the US didn't support it; really that ended Britain's colonial empire and signaled the rise of American power in the world. The Soviets also lost their chance to make a significant impression in the Middle East; the Russians would have told the Arabs, hey look at these Americans supporting the imperialists. That would have weakened the American cause throughout the Middle East and the rest of the 3rd World, where the Cold War was really fought. We became very popular throughout the Middle East because we stood up for Arab nationalism. Eisenhower realized that being a fair mediator in foreign policy will reap huge outcomes and that a prudent realist worldview is the best way to see things; no starry eyed idealism here. But he did take the long view of things as well. He ended off his Presidency by warning us about the rise of the military-industrial complex and how the economics of war threatened to make peace a difficult venture. It was aimed at President Kennedy, with his premonitions about a missile gap with the Soviets that really wasn't. It was Kennedy who really started the militarization of our economy at home, something that we're still dealing with. Johnson promoted his guns and butter economics which lead to the rampant inflation and stagnation of the 1970's. At home, Eisenhower emphasized a balanced budget and lower government spending. He believed that the government should do a few things but do them right. Look at the interstate highway system: it revolutionized transportation and logistical systems throughout the country. It really helped economic growth by making regional markets more interlinked. Eisenhower had a solid character; he was a no-BS personality, you had to be if you lead the D-Day invasion. I honestly wish that we could have a President like Ike again, someone that takes a balanced view of things.

This man destoryed social security.

Ike gave us a secure, if somewhat lackluster, country to grow up in. For that, he should be thanked.

Great man and great president. One of the few who made his decisions based on a gut ethic of right and wrong rather than political considerations. We've never seen the like of the quiet dignity of the Eisenhower years.

mcarthy-ism

I like IKE. A humble president, No wonder the Liberals hate him.

An underrated President. he balanced the budget all eight years. He kept the peace.

I Like Ike!

Like Gerald Ford, Ike is often overlooked/under-appreciated because he didn't blow his own horn (a la Bill "Look at me!" Clinton). He gave us the interstate highway system, which virtually all Americans use on a regular basis, played a strong hand against the Red Menace, and he apparently only had one mistress, instead of dozens, again a la Bill "Dirty Rotten Liar" Clinton. If he'd had no affairs and had supported civil rights more strongly, he'd be a five-star president.

Much better in his first term than his second...mainly because of health issues...a great general who was the right man to serve for the times...seemed to be the perfect fit for the 1950's.

Eisenhower desevers weak points as a moral leader, he refused to engage McCarthyism publicly even though he privately hated it. Nor did he support the most important social justice movement of the 20th century: civil rights. His biographer, Steven Ambrose, says it best: "In civil rights, as in civil liberties, Eisenhower was not a reluctant leader—he was no leader at all."

He claimed to be middle of the road, but was really a conservative. Not by any means a very good president. However, the modern road, interstate highway system that we are accustomed to today were constructed as a result of Eisenhower's work, as well as American Suburbia.

Eisenhower presided over one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras of our nation's history, and deserves part of the credit for it. He had the ability to lift the spirit's of the American people and gave us the strength of a great reputaion. He has been criticised for not doing enough. While he should have probably done more in some areas, there are other things that are best left alone, knowing that less government involvement is better than more. But then he is also not given enough credit for his part in things like civil rights, such as when he sent troops into Little Rock. Mostly, Eisenhower was just a decent man of integrity, which we all should know by now is important in a president.

At least he warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. Plus he was a better golfer than any of the following preidents.

Cold war, maccarthysm, ... Nothing to be proud of as President (we are not rating a general, and as De Gaulle, he was a good war leader, but in peace time it's really worst!)

Great slogon, but that is all it was.

Ike was a great general.

Could have reversed the "New Deal", dismantled the welfare state, deregulated industry and cut taxes. Instead, he solidified all of the above. Pretty poor Republican.

Not a bad President, but he basically legitimized the big government mess that FDR mobilized. (The same way, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, Clinton has basically endorsed Reagan's economic policies (if not his rhetoric or character) by NOT going back to steep tax rates or protectionism...)

I really really want to like Ike, but I can't quite pull it off. I understand the argument that he did a great job leading SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces) during World War 2, but I don't quite buy it. Sure he was excellent at promoting teamwork, but by no means was he a military genius like MacArthur or Patton. With a little more boldness and daring, I think we could have defeated the Germans much sooner. But OK, we don't want to consider his soldier days when we're rating him as a President. So let's look at how he handled the Cold War - by far the biggest issue facing his administration. Despite Churchill's constant begging (and begging is not too strong a word), Eisenhower consistently refused to meet with the heads of the Soviet government (Churchill coined the term "summit" to describe those meetings). Sure, things turned out OK, but I wonder if Ike's rigid approach to foreign policy caused the U.S. to miss opportunities to begin thawing our relationship with the USSR. And, if a few tiny things had gone differently during the Kennedy administration's Cuban Missile Crisis, the path Ike chose might have led us to nuclear destruction. Still, it's hard to speculate on such large, complex world events, so I'm not going to argue that Ike really missed the boat with the Soviets. But I will argue that he was not an especially intelligent man, that he failed to accomplish much of lasting value (the interstate highway system being an exception), and that he did not offer inspired leadership to the country at a critical time in our history.

Ike was his own man, he guided the country through some very difficult years...