Ike presided over the country in a time of peace and prosperity. The staid ’50′s were followed by a turbulent decade in the 60′s, each had its own unique contribution to American life.

And: I enjoyed reading this interview, like Marlowecan especially – perhaps – the part about Eisenhower.

Generally, a very sound interview, I have to say. This is a true historian speaking, not some partisan ‘expert’.

His discussion of Eisenhower is an excellent case in point: “oftentimes you really do have to wait to understand a president… We now know that Eisenhower was behind the scenes enormously active in making sure that our intelligence showed that the Soviets were building up at a much slower rate than Nikita Khrushchev was claiming.”

Certainly Kennedy and the Democrats were full of it in regard to the non-existent “Missile Gap”. Eisenhower understood the military industrial complex very well – it was he, not leftist critics, who brought the term into common usage – and kept a tight leash on the generals and their chums in industry. In the 1950s, of course, he was mocked by the Democrats for his bumbling speech impediments, and his seeming disengagement from the world on the golf links.

It was only after a generation or so that we gained a fuller understanding of how hard he worked behind the scenes to keep things going.

Good questions too, BTW…with regard to “activist” presidents and their evaluation by history.

Activism is a particularly interesting question. I would rate Reagan and Bush 2 as activist presidents, and Bush 1 and Clinton as not. Is activism of itself good or bad?

Food for thought in the morning is always good