The year was 1952 and the United States was embroiled in the early stages of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. At the helm stood President Harry Truman, a fairly conservative Democrat whose policies and politics mirrored Franklin Roosevelt in many respects. Facing foreign policy challenges Roosevelt would have deemed unimaginable during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, Truman was the first American President forced to consider the widening Soviet sphere and its implications toward policymaking. With this enormous responsibility came an abundance of press coverage, including powerful, recently introduced television coverage which boosted Truman out of the Oval Office and into the homes of millions of fascinated Americans. Increased coverage translated into increased criticism of "liberal" Truman Cold War policies by conservative Republican members of Congress, vying for an ideological and electoral advantage in an era when nationalism was the status quo and "soft" Soviet policies ruined politicians.

In order to win the war of propaganda, the United States needed a leader who appeared in control, was unwavering in his decisions, and would uphold American superiority to the Soviets. In General Dwight Eisenhower, a popular war hero with undecided political aspirations, the United States found such a man.

Today, the Cold War is over, but the United States finds itself in a similar position, in need of a strong, decisive leader to carry the nation into the next century. With the Presidential race starting to heat up, Colin Powell has been drafted by the public as a top contender for the 1996 election. And while Powell and his wife Alma have yet to reach a conclusion regarding his run at the Presidency, it is interesting to note the parallels evident in analyzing the 1952 and 1996 Presidential races thus far. For one, both men made careers in the military, enjoying little experience in the political realm prior to their discharge from the service. Eisenhower commanded troops in Europe while Powell gained fame for his decisiveness and skill as George Bush's head of the Joint-Chiefs during the Persian Gulf War. The success that both leaders enjoyed "on the battlefield" provided them national attention, resulting in their widespread popularity. Both men became more actively involved in the public sphere and supporters began to urge their man to run for the Presidency.

Both leaders share similar political philosophies as well. Ike Eisenhower was known for his "middle of the road" moderate views, as is Colin Powell today. Eisenhower, as the first Republican President following the passage of liberal New Deal legislation in the 1930's upheld the most fundamental of New Deal programs and legislation, such as social security and bank depositor's insurance. Powell, while his specific positions on issues have yet to be unveiled, is viewed as a strong, aggressive leader, conservative fiscally and with respect to foreign policy and defense spending, while socially liberal, wanting to maintain government sponsored Medicare and other federal entitlements. In short, Powell is a real "middle of the roader."

As a result of their centrist tendencies, both candidates encountered difficulty choosing a political party, and of course, Powell has not yet made a determination. General Eisenhower, like Powell was courted by Republicans and Democrats alike. Ultimately, Ike joined forces with Republicans because he felt that Truman, and other Democrats were too liberal on many matters. Also, the Republican party of the 1950's was much more moderate, or even centrist than it is today. It was not uncommon for Republicans to field candidates like Eisenhower who were liberal on social issues, yet conservative on matters of national security and economic importance. Furthermore, 1950's Republicans were void of the influence from the Christian right which currently plagues the party. Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition and other reactionary organizations not in tune with the overwhelming majority of American voters have effectively scared Republican hopefuls like Robert Dole and Phil Gramm far right of what their philosophies truly are. Candidates are powerless, however, needing to court the christian vote in order to win important primaries where their presence is significantly larger than in the general election.

It is a little known fact that Colin Powell's parents were life-long Democrats, and Powell's position as a social issues liberal, not embracing the policies of the christian and conservative right, would make one believe that the retired serviceman would never consider running on the Republican ticket. After all, he would never garner the support of the reactionary organizations and might encounter trouble in the primaries as a result. However, recent polls illustrate that Powell still has a viable chance at the Republican nomination despite his liberal and moderate tendencies. According to Time magazine's online daily news service, of 633 voters interviewed, 23 percent would vote for Powell in the primary if held now as compared with 22 percent for Republican front-runner Bob Dole.

But Powell, unlike Eisenhower, also has the opportunity to run as an independent, threatening to throw the relatively stable two-party American system into disarray. Ross Perot has already declared that he will form a new national party comprised of independents disillusioned by the current political landscape. Powell has emerged, like it or not, as the new party's first choice Presidential candidate for 1996. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 46 percent of the sample interviewed would like to see Powell run as the new party's candidate. The candidate, according to Perot, will not be selected until spring. Other viable choices include outgoing New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, and retiring Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. Both of these Democratic politicians seeming to echo many of Powell's frusterations feel detached from their party and disillusioned with American politics in general. This might be the ideal situation for Powell should he enter the race. In this case, Perot would finance the new party with his seemingly endless resources while Powell, not needing to worry about monetary matters as much could turn his attention to the issues, something that he has yet to seriously consider. One issue that Powell has considered, however, and feels extremely strongly toward is the family unit and it's potential for American revitalization. By instilling the importance of the American family, meaning the respect and understanding of peoples of all colors, religions, and backgrounds, Powell believes, Americans can restore American values. His notions of family values, however, do not mirror the Republicans'. Powell believes that gay and lesbian parents should have the legal rights to raise children, because in his opinion, it is a loving family that fosters proper growth and development. He does not take into consideration the moral decisions as to what constitutes a family.

Another factor which Eisenhower never had to consider in 1952 was racism and the division of America along color lines. As an African-American, Powell brings with him unique experiences and views which could prove useful in America's attempt to pull together as a proud nation made great by its plurality, rather than divided by it. He beat racism and has ideas to help other ethnic minorities do so as well.

Most importantly, however, Powell, like Dwight D. Eisenhower before him, is an attractive candidate not because of his stance on the issues or his fame as a military hero. Rather, both men lacked enthusiasm for involvement in national politics. Ironically enough, politicians like Bill Clinton, genuinely dedicated to national politics are those most apt to be shunned by the public in recent years. Powell provides the American public an alternative to the corrupted ideologies of Democratic and Republican thought. As a unique Republican or a Perot-independent, there is little argument that Retired General Colin Powell is just what America is in search of, an independent thinker in the Eisenhower tradition.

© Trincoll Journal, 1995.