Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump most like Eisenhower, not Hitler

While the MSM is overwrought that Trump is the next Hitler, it occurs to me that the past politician Trump is most like is actually Eisenhower. Eisenhower was, strangely enough, the last president who wasn’t a professional politician before becoming president. Eisenhower cracked down on illegal immigration just like Trump says he wants to do.

So Trump can’t possibly be like Hitler when he’s actually like the general of the army that DEFEATED Hitler.

Trump-haters will try to point out that Eisenhower said nice things about Muslims, but that was before Muslim terrorism existed. You can be damn sure that Ike wouldn’t have let any Muslims into the country if they were blowing stuff up back then like they do today.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 4, 2016 at 12:20 pm

Posted in Politics

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The Hitler comparison was always absurd. Watch a Trump speech, then watch a Hitler speech. Night and day. Trump is lighthearted and surrounded by beautiful women, he’s fundamentally a happy and fun guy, even if he has a serious side. It’s not clear that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship and he wasn’t exactly ‘fun’ or culturally semi-Jewish like Trump. Hard to imagine Hitler playing along in the hokey professional wrestling skits either.


    April 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    • He did. He had Eva Braun.


      April 4, 2016 at 6:09 pm

      • The subject has been thoroughly explored. Hitler’s maids for example nosed around for evidence they ‘did it’, none. Like is said, unclear.


        April 4, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    • Actually Hitler was a bit more complicated than that. There is plenty of footage of him smiling and laughing. He was also in combat in WW1 and did not lack the attention of females. And Hitler modeled his speeches on some theater stuff as well.


      April 4, 2016 at 8:55 pm

      • the fuhrer had a wicked sense of humour. reading through “hitler’s table talks” gives the best depiction of what he was like when the cameras weren’t rolling and he wasn’t giving a raving speech. he loved to ramble and he could be very funny, saying stuff like “dueling should be abolished in german society, except between lawyers and priests, where it should be made compulsory!”

        james n.s.w

        April 5, 2016 at 1:04 am

  2. I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more effort to demonize Eisenhower. I guess that’s because he’s just not on anybody’s mental radar. You have to demonize the founding fathers (except for Hamilton, the “immigrant” one) because they still get a lot of play, but sensible guys like Eisenhower can be left alone because probably 75% of Americans have never even heard of him, much less know about Operation Wetback.


    April 4, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    • My mother heard of him. But she’s old enough to remember him as president, so I guess that doesn’t count.

    • The America of the 50s has been utterly demonized by the Left just as the 60s have been hagiographed.


      April 4, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    • In the old days liberals thought he was (like Reagan and Dubya Bush) a lazy moron whose advisers ran the show. But then LBJ and Nixon came along and even the liberals thought Ike looked pretty good by comparison. Plus a lot of materials got declassified that showed Ike ran a tight ship and controlled his administration’s policy — which is exactly what you would expect of a man with his background.


      April 4, 2016 at 10:38 pm

  3. Trump is more like FDR, and his support base is similar to FDR’s.


    April 4, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    • Trump is more economically sensible (still pretty bad, on the whole) than most Republicans but calling him FDR is a big, big stretch.


      April 4, 2016 at 9:34 pm

      • It’s not a stretch at all. FDR was a wealthy New Yorker and nationalist who was relatively socially liberally and favored big government. That’s basically what Trump is, and they have the same base of support.


        April 5, 2016 at 12:53 pm

      • He’s like Lincoln, in that both won votes from people.


        April 5, 2016 at 6:14 pm

      • I understand that’s supposed to be a sarcastic comment, but Lincoln’s support base wasn’t like Trump’s today. The South and northern ethnics like the Irish did not like Lincoln. Whereas the South and northern ethnics were FDR’s primary support base and are Trump’s as well, as others have noted:

        “It’s no coincidence that the two pillars of the Donald Trump coalition are Southern whites and Northern white ethnics. These groups were loyal to the Democratic Party through the massive expansion of the federal government under the New Deal.”


        April 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm

  4. If youI’ve ever seen how Eisenhower wrote, they’re not remotely alike. Incidentally, Gen. MacArthur said about Eisenhower, “best secretary I ever had.”


    April 4, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    • Apparently, Marshall disagreed. Ike got the plum assignment.


      April 4, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      • Because he was a reliable communist – that’s who got jobs in FDR’s administration.

        Steve Johnson

        April 4, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    • If you read Ike’s book, “Crusade in Europe,” you will see it was not ghostwritten (much of it is very tedious) and his argument about why he was chosen to be Supreme Commander in the West. Marshall was needed in Washington to ride herd on Congress (and FDR) to prevent them from doing something stupid, and Ike was chosen to keep the coalition together and manage the logistics. Ike freely acknowledges the superior battle skills of Generals like Patton, but argues persuasively that to fight in Europe, first all the material had to be brought there, even or especially the gasoline, and then the British, Soviets, and various exile armies plus the Commonwealth forces (Canada and Australia sent enormous amounts of men) all marshaled together.

      As Ike noted, Napoleon’s reputation went down when historians realized most of his victories were over coalition forces.


      April 4, 2016 at 11:54 pm

  5. “You can be damn sure that Ike wouldn’t have let any Muslims into the country if they were blowing stuff up back then like they do today.”

    Probably true but when ppl say if you bring X person back from time he would do Y things isn’t always true. We often hear those arguments about the Founding Fathers. There are more SJW’s in colleges and media compared to Ike’s day. Ike also would need to rely on donors. Who knows what he would do, or could do. But your point is taken.

    Steven J.

    April 4, 2016 at 1:58 pm

  6. People like to say a candidate is like this or that person. You can say he’s like Eisenhower because neither was a professional politician. Like Reagan because he appeals to the ‘Reagan Democrats’. And like Rockefeller because he’s a billionaire. He shares similarities with others in some isolated ways. But he’s still too unique to really be like any of them. He’s his own thing.


    April 4, 2016 at 2:16 pm

  7. Eisenhower was a general credited with leading the Allied forces to victory in Europe during WW II. Electing him president follows in the American tradition of electing victorious military commanders president, like Washington and Grant.

    Trump was never a military commander of any kind. In fact his critics claim he was a draft dodger.

    The only two previous US presidents that had no experience with elected office and were not high ranking military officers were William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover.

    Both Taft and Hoover had extensive government experience before their election. Taft had been Solicitor General of the United States, a federal judge and Secretary of War before his election to president. Hoover had been head of the U.S. Food Administration, help organize relief for Europe after WW I, and was Secretary of Commerce. While neither Taft or Hoover held elected office before becoming president, they both had held cabinet level appointments in the federal government.

    Trump has no experience with elected office, has never served in the military and has no experience working in federal or state government.


    April 4, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    • Trump has no experience with elected office, has never served in the military and has no experience working in federal or state government.”

      And? We’ve had/have Billy, Hillary, Barry and a guy who threw his medals over a fence in gov’t. And you’re whining about Trump.


      April 4, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    • Trump has no experience with elected office, has never served in the military and has no experience working in federal or state government.

      You say this like it’s a bad thing. Yet look at how much good the “experience” in elected office or Federal or State government has done us in the past couple of decades. Professional politicians are mostly fuckups, or corrupt, or traitors, or all three. I trust someone with private sector experience far more than any of those creatures.


      April 4, 2016 at 10:42 pm

      • “Professional politicians are mostly fuckups, or corrupt, or traitors, or all three. I trust someone with private sector experience far more than any of those creatures.”

        Exactly. The only skill professional politicians need is getting elected. It’s staff who do the work. Clearly, Trump has the ability to hire good people and manage them. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be a multi-billionaire. That skill alone makes him the most qualified. That and his views on trade and immigration.


        April 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm

      • When you car engine needs to be rebuilt, you probably go looking for a good business man with no previous experience in car repairs.

        As they say, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”


        April 5, 2016 at 6:26 pm

      • That’s how big corporations hire CEOs and other “C” level executives. Instead of promoting someone who actually knows the company.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 5, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      • “That’s how big corporations hire CEOs and other “C” level executives. Instead of promoting someone who actually knows the company.”

        And we all know how well that works.

        That is not true of start up companies. If a start up becomes successful, then at some point the founders are replaced by outside executives. I worked at a small startup company in the 1980s. When the company decided to go public, the founders brought in a couple of MBA types to take over managing some of the business units. There was no venture capital money at all in this company, so it was the founders decision and the CEO was not replaced. These MBA types proceeded to completely destroy the company. Inside 2 or 3 years the company was sold off cheap to its main competitor.

        Companies screw up their management all the time. The ones that screw up the most go out of business. Many others just almost go out of business. It’s a competitive market. You only need to screw up less than your competitors or have a monopoly to succeed at business.


        April 5, 2016 at 9:00 pm

      • When you car engine needs to be rebuilt, you probably go looking for a good business man with no previous experience in car repairs.

        If I had spent the last 30+ years hiring “professional, experienced” auto mechanics who were complete fuckups who made my car problems even worse, then yeah, I would reject the supposed “qualifications” of those “experienced mechanics” and hire an intelligent man instead.


        April 5, 2016 at 9:19 pm

      • “Yet look at how much good the “experience” in elected office or Federal or State government has done us in the past couple of decades. Professional politicians are mostly fuckups, or corrupt, or traitors, or all three. I trust someone with private sector experience far more than any of those creatures.”

        You have been taken in by political con men who promise you the moon, knowing full well they can’t deliver. They promised you they would repeal Obama care if you just gave them control of the Senate in 2014 knowing full well that the guy named Obama would still be president and would simply veto the repeal.

        Now you are being taken in by a better con man.

        Just remember, although things have been screwed up, they could have been far worse. I have to give George Bush credit. His advisers told him that the US had to do a trillion dollars bail out of the big banks to prevent another great depression. This went against all of his free market instincts, but he listened to the arguments and agreed to push the TARP. If he had not, the recession would have been another great depression.

        “You can’t always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you might find. You get what you need”


        April 5, 2016 at 11:00 pm

      • I haven’t been taken in by con men. I knew they wouldn’t deliver. In the past I have voted for the “lesser evil” – i.e., I know the guys I voted for won’t deliver what I want, but I hope they’ll do less bad things than the other guy. I’m done with that now.

        And if Trump doesn’t deliver on the two things I care about, so be it. He’s still the last chance to save the country.


        April 6, 2016 at 8:49 am

  8. Did Eisenhower have anything bad to say about the Japanese? Sounds like a meaningful comparison with the Muslims of today.

    Half Canadian

    April 4, 2016 at 2:43 pm

  9. Trump is the most like Andrew Jackson. He is the quintessential Scots Irish candidate. Like Old Hickory he is brave, fiercely nationalist, pro-labor and militaristic. After his inauguration Jackson let the public into the White House for a drunken party and they trashed the place. When a political science professor uses the term “Jacksonian” they are talking about a leader who is willing to wage total war. A Jacksonian leader is completely merciless upon the enemy, like Jackson was with the Indians. That is the credo of the Scots Irish in America and their man, at this point in history, is Donald J. Trump.

    Trump is similar to Eisenhower in that he is a Republican who is not completely anti-government or against public works. Eisenhower was willing to spend liberally on public infrastructure when he felt that it benefitted the people. He also stood up to the military industrial complex when he felt that they were getting out of control. Eisenhower was the only man with the stature and respect to be able to do that. I believe Trump would do the same. Temperamentally, they are quite different. Ike was first and foremost an administrator. Trump is more like one of the unhinged Generals that Eisenhower was desperately trying to reign in, ie Patton and McArthur.


    April 4, 2016 at 2:54 pm

  10. “Eisenhower cracked down on illegal immigration just like Trump says he wants to do.”

    I presume this is a reference to Operation Wetback.

    In 1942 the US and Mexico set up the bracero program that allowed Mexican farm works to enter the US legally for short times. This was to fill a farm labor shortages during WW II. In fact only a small number of workers were admitted under this program, but many more Mexicans illegally entered the US to work.

    The owners of large farms in Mexico also faced labor shortages because many Mexican farm workers went to the USA, either through the bracero program or more likely illegally. The large farm owners pressured the Mexican government to stop the illegal immigration of Mexican farm workers to the USA. The US agreed to add more border security, but it did little to stop the illegal immigration. In 1954 negotiations between the US and Mexico broke down, and the Mexican government sent 5000 troops the border in an effort to stop illegal immigration of Mexican’s to the US.

    After Mexico sent troops to the border, US began negotiations for what became Operation Wetback. US agreed to tighten border security and speed up deportations. Most of the stepped up enforcement was along the Texas and California borders. There were also some sweeps in Los Angles, San Francisco and Chicago. The Mexican government attempted to transport those deported deep into Mexico where there were farm labor jobs available and to make it more difficult for the workers to re-enter the US.

    Operation Wetback was successful in deporting large numbers of Mexicans, but it did not stop the flow of illegals into the US.

    Operation Wetback was started at the demand of the Mexican government and its implementation was negotiated between the US and Mexico. Somewhat different than what Trump is proposing.


    April 4, 2016 at 3:29 pm

  11. The best they have on Ike is that he did not support civil rights enough. But since it happened under Kennedy right after he left office and liberals got to take all the credit, they don’t much care. Plus he did beat Hitler.

    J W

    April 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm

  12. I almost wrote that the Hitler comparisons are ridiculous, but they are not completely ridiculous, just mostly ridiculous.

    Weimer era Germany had a lot of far right politicians and political parties. What made Hitler different is that he actually was able to appeal to ordinary people. The German industrialists and military tried to co-opt them as the public face of their dictatorship (the dictatorship was going to happen anyway, even if the Nazis never existed) and he wound up dominating them.

    Most of the pearl clutching about Trump is over his populism, not his right wing politics, which are mostly opportunistic if they exist at all. The lesson the elites took with Hitler was “never let a politician who appeals to ordinary people ever hold any power again.”

    With Eisenhower, I was thinking this the other day, that a Presidential nominee with no history of holding elective office actually has not been that unusual in US history. It happened more often in the nineteenth than the twentieth century, and it used to be common with senior ex-military, though not post Eisenhower. Past examples include Z. Taylor (general), Scott (general), Grant (general), Parker (judge), Taft (judge), Hoover (businessman), Wilkie (businessman), and Eisenhower (general). These examples account for over a dozen major party nominations.

    In background, Trump is closest to Wendell Willkie among past major party nominees. Willkie is unknown to the general public but historians usually write complimentary things about him.


    April 4, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    • A lot of people wanted Eisenhower to be a figurehead president, which he sort of was. He had no hard political opinions which is why both Democrats and Republicans courted him. He isn’t really associated with much as president, beyond a general status-quo-all-the-way attitude, which was appropriate for the postwar era.

      Trump is a very disruptive guy, by contrast. I don’t think America is in as chaotic of an era as a lot of people imagine it to be. I think his best political analogy is still Ross Perot.


      April 4, 2016 at 7:10 pm

  13. Meanwhile, the Enquirer on Wednesday is releasing a new report about Cruz’s affairs.

    If Trump (or indirect Trump surrogates) have proof of Cruz’s infidelity, the time to play that card is now when it doing so can still help Trump: If Trump waits until the convention, the establishment will use the affair as a reason not to give the nomination to Cruz on later ballots.

    If used now, the affair will cripple Cruz’s campaign heading into the remaining primary states. If Trump can figure out a way to get Kasich out of the race (hopefully not by making him Trump’s VP) he will get super-majorities of the remaining delegates because no viable competition will be left standing.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    April 4, 2016 at 6:04 pm


    But Radar has learned The National ENQUIRER will this week report its findings of yet another exhaustive and investigative probe that will quote journalist detectives who claim the mystery candidate almost certainly “has to be Cruz.”

    Investigator Wayne Madsen, who was on a team of reporters hired by Hustler Magazine’s boisterous owner Larry Flynt to investigate the madam, told The ENQUIRER that Cruz should be concerned!

    “If Montgomery Sibley has what he says he has, it has to be Cruz,” he said in an interview — an advance copy of which was provided to Radar.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    April 4, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    • Wow “Radar has learned” that have they? They are the they same damned outfit as NE!

      Lion of the Turambar

      April 5, 2016 at 9:17 am

    • They are the they same damned outfit as NE!

      Of course. But it’s all good so long as it keeps Cruz’s infidelity in the news.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      April 5, 2016 at 5:12 pm

  15. Would Trump help defeat the evil Kiev fascist junta?


    April 4, 2016 at 6:08 pm

  16. Eisenhower was the leader of the allied forces during World War II.

    Trump had a dumb reality TV show. Trump is more like if Monty Hall ran for president or something.


    April 4, 2016 at 6:55 pm

  17. What’s crazy about the Left, is that according to their worldview everyone in America who actually fought against and defeated Hitler would most likely considered an evil racist Nazi today. America was evil until the 1960s.


    April 4, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    • Indeed. Remember that demented anti-white rant by the execrable Tim Wise? Here’s how he described the American soldiers who won WWII:

      so-called “greatest generation” — a bunch whose white contingent was top-heavy with ethical miscreants who helped save the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.


      April 4, 2016 at 11:52 pm

  18. These efforts to compare Hitler to Trump contain a major missing element, who was supporting Hitler?

    Hitler’s support came disproportionately from middle class Protestants (including upper middles) with a heavy emphasis on rural people and women who voted disproportionately for him. He had weaker than average support from the working class, Catholics and males (as compared to females). Does that sound like Trump’s angry white working class male constituency? BTW – funny nobody ever points out the importance of the female vote to electing Hitler.


    April 4, 2016 at 8:32 pm

  19. Trump is most like the greatest Troll in history. His early campaign produced the most PC take-down that I’ve seen in my entire life. He’s putting all the derelicts in check. It’s about time someone said something.

    Uncle Frank the Enforcer

    April 4, 2016 at 10:03 pm

  20. Well, Chelsea Handler weighed in and … posed naked from the back with “Trump is a butt hole” written on her back and buttocks. That might have been … interesting twenty years ago.

    But since **BOTH** Chelsea Handler and Miley Cyrus weighed in against Trump, well I guess that’s it. If Trump can’t carry two STD-ridden female celebrities with substance abuse problems that used to be attractive in the past and people would pay now to NOT be naked, well who can he carry?

    Ordinary Americans? That’s what, at most 200 million people? After all, doesn’t one Kardashian equal 100 million ordinary people? Heck I read somewhere that Kardashian is a unit of celebrity measure.

    Who else is Trump going to lose? Margaret Cho? Whoopi? Pretty soon there won’t be a celebrity left on his bandwagon save Adrian Zmed*

    *OK I just wanted to type Adrian Zmed.


    April 5, 2016 at 12:03 am

    • Has Lena Dunham weighed in on Trump yet? That would give him the Trifecta among women we all pray we’ll never see naked again.


      April 5, 2016 at 9:29 am

  21. Can’t believe neither you nor any of your typically erudite readers mentioned…

    Ike famously warned the US public about the Military-Industrial Complex, Trump wants to close foreign bases Germany, S. Korea, and Japan, and has even put NATO on the table.


    April 5, 2016 at 12:25 am

  22. If Eisenhower flattered the Muslims, it was probably a calculated tactic in the Cold War in the battle for hearts and minds in the Third World. The Soviets were weaseling their way into the Middle East and had established close ties with Egypt.

    Mark Caplan

    April 5, 2016 at 3:40 am

    • I would guess Eisenhower had a favorable opinion of Muslims. In the 1940s/50s Muslims were mostly considered the good guys. First of all Muslims were generally anti-Communist. But also Americans had a very romantic image of Arabs and Oriental culture that came from Kipling, Burton and TS Lawrence. The Islamic world was all camels, mysterious women in veils, harems, passionate men who could fight on horseback and spout poetry, etc. Arabs were considered a quaint romantic culture, that posed no threat to Europe. Wherever the British Empire had Muslims in their colonies, that was often the favored population they would use to control indigenous non-Muslims, since the Muslims tended to be more educated. In India the Muslims had dominated for centuries before the British showed up, and the British considered the Muslims more advanced than the supersitious “Hindoos”. The real schism between the West and Islam only began in the 1960s when the US decided to go all in on supporting Israel, and the USSR realized that anti-colonial sentiment in the Arab world could be manipulated against the West in countries where Socialism was not an attractive option.

      Peter Akuleyev

      April 6, 2016 at 4:06 am

  23. Eisenhower was the ultimate Establishment guy. He was fairly congenial, modest, Midwestern and would have found Trump’s behavior beyond the pale. If Eisenhower were alive today he would probably be among the first Republicans to denounce Trump. Trump has very little in common with Eisenhower. As B.T.D.T said, Andrew Jackson is probably the best political parallel. Berlusconi is the most obvious international comparison. Hitler parallels make no sense, and are just lazy rubbish.

    Peter Akuleyev

    April 5, 2016 at 4:35 am

  24. OT: centrist Democrat think tank apparently reads LOTB and acknowledges Peak Labor, says solution is blue-collar make-work.


    April 5, 2016 at 8:49 am

    • We should put people to work building a fence at the border with Mexico.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 5, 2016 at 8:58 am

    • Hilarious. A whole article about too many workers, yet if you give it the patented Sailer Ctrl+I test, what word DOESN’T show up? Can ya guess?


      April 5, 2016 at 9:32 am

  25. Eisenhower had an affair during the war with Kay Summersby, his driver. When he returned to the US, he told his boss, George Marshall, that he wanted to divorce Mamie and marry Kay. Marshal told him that if he did so, Marshall would fire him and kick him out of the army. So Ike didn’t get a divorce and became president (one of our better ones, IMHO) instead.

    Black Death

    April 5, 2016 at 9:35 am

  26. OT

    tags: trump, proles, hbd


    ‘This may be the week the SJWs lost it all, or, at least, their power to bully people in the hacker culture and the wider tech community.’



    April 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

  27. If Churchill was around today he would probably be compared to Hitler. Churchill even said the tories should campaign on the motto ‘ keep England white’!

    I had a laugh when Paul Ryan sanctimoniously criticised trump for bigotry while saying “this is the party of Lincoln”. I guess he wasn’t aware of Lincolns HBD related statements and relocation plan?


    April 5, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    • Lincoln was anti-slavery and believed it was evil to enslave other humans. But that doesn’t mean he believed that blacks were identical in their mental capabilities as whites. And he was also OK with a slow phase-out of slavery, but the South seceded and attacked Fort Sumter.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 5, 2016 at 6:43 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: