Dear Friends,
Last week, an open letter from thirteen presidential centers called on citizens of our country to engage in civic dialogue and support democracy. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and other publications immediately jumped on a potential controversy when it was noted that the Eisenhower Foundation was the only organization affiliated with a presidential library that declined to sign the collective letter.
The back story is simple. Earlier in the summer, David J. Kramer, the new Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute, contacted all the presidential foundations/institutes with a request that they sign this open letter calling for civic discourse, strengthening our democracy, and supporting “democratic movements and human rights around the world.” The Bush Institute gave no opportunity for the community to discuss this proposal in advance, so the request came almost out of the blue.
When making their decision, the Eisenhower Foundation asked my family about our views. We immediately raised concerns about the process, its impact on long-held traditions within this presidential community, and what it might portend for the future.
As well intentioned as—no doubt—this effort was, we advised against signing the letter.
My family had three concerns. First, our late father John (Ike and Mamie’s only surviving child) cautioned us against putting today’s policy words into the mouth of Dwight Eisenhower, long deceased.
Second, The Eisenhower Foundation, by virtue of its place among a broad array of Eisenhower legacy organizations, focuses on the life and times of Dwight Eisenhower, not contemporary issues. The foundation also helps support the NARA-managed presidential library. It is not the Foundation’s mission to comment publicly on current events, no matter how many people might agree with a statement.
And third, even if the Foundation had decided to make an exception and sign such a letter, it would in effect be endorsing a new precedent for these presidential centers—one that we believe far exceeds the role of these diverse institutions. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between institutes/foundations of deceased presidents and those which still serve living individuals. They are more activist in nature. Alternatively, the Eisenhower Foundation like others whose presidents are deceased, concentrates on educating the public on the history of their president and their period.
If the letter had called for individual signatures, not institutional ones, no doubt it would have been supported by many people in their own personal capacities.
Our reasoning was based on principle rather than impulse, but it was not fully understood by the media. Some people wrote the Eisenhower community to complain. This is precisely why my family had deep reservations about the Foundation wandering into this highly charged election cycle in the first place. It is not their role.
This coming political year will be full of emotionalism. “Saving democracy” is quickly becoming the rallying cry of both political parties, with each group defining the threat to our system of governance in vastly different ways. It is difficult to talk about democracy without a more nuanced discussion of public perceptions. What we need is a clearer definition of what we mean by democracy and a more prescribed articulation of the system’s vulnerabilities.
In that context, an array of Eisenhower legacy organizations work to support American democracy and strengthen our country at home and abroad. Their efforts are second to none. They do this by creating the conditions for active listening, to empower individual voices not group think. They create platforms for open exchanges, mutual understanding and the pursuit of common ground. As Dwight Eisenhower said at Columbia University on May 31, 1954, “Without exhaustive debate—even heated debate—about ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither…”
Our robust group of Eisenhower legacy organizations together spend multi-millions of dollars in annual programming to address these very objectives. I am proud of the work the Eisenhower Foundation does in educating students about mid-century America, leadership and the challenges Dwight Eisenhower faced. I participate in, and wholeheartedly support, the Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College in their work through Democracy Week and other impactful programs. The American Assembly at Columbia University, founded in 1950 by then president of the university Dwight Eisenhower, has also had an extraordinary record of bringing together diverse national voices. With its upcoming merger with another Columbia department, the Assembly concept has the potential to do considerably more.
I am also deeply gratified that we have two other legacy organizations that have an extraordinary record in bolstering America’s place in the world: the Eisenhower Fellowships program and Business Council for International Understanding (BCIU) And I am humbled that other legacy organizations, as part of the United States government, play an indispensable role in underscoring the critical importance of strategic thinking in our national and international affairs—The Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy at the National Defense University and The Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the Air Force Academy. In addition, other organizations trace their history to Dwight Eisenhower, such as The Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Sister Cities International and People to People International to name a few.
Our commitment to this country’s democracy is consistent with everything Dwight Eisenhower did in his lifetime and all he represented. He fervently believed that “actions speak louder than words.”
**
All Eisenhower legacy organizations have a few things in common. They were either founded by Dwight D. Eisenhower or they were initiated by his closest associates not long after his death. Eisenhower was on the faculty in the 1920s at what is today The Eisenhower School at NDU. Dwight Eisenhower also established the Air Force Academy during his presidency in 1954.
SusanEisenhower 
This makes sense.
The world will never be uniformly democratic. World peace is a more achievable goal. The group letter should have included peace as a priority.
I’m disappointed with your decision
If Ike was here today and saw what is going g on and the threat to our democracy that exists from enemies foreign sbd right now strongly domestic
He would be horrified He would be worried
Civil War could be 14 months away The chumminess between president 45 and Putin would upset him. I just know it I feel that I know what he would say This issue is different than other modern day issues
– Barry katz
Thank you for your letter. It is unfortunate that it had to be written for individuals to understand the purpose of the Eisenhower foundation. I agree with the reading of your letter.
Sent from my iPhone
>
WOW! Excellent!
Agree completely with foundation’s position and with your father’s advice.
As a former CEO of The Eisenhower Foundation, at first, I was disappointed with the Foundation declining to sign the letter, but Susan’s explanation persuades me that it was the right decision for the reasons she enumerates.
More than enough said. Bravo!
More than enough said.Bravo!
Susan,
GOOD CALL;
*Other than bestowing LIFE protections upon our Citizenry’s most vulnerable & weak stakeholders, Democracy’s primary/(only) challenge to its existence in perpetuity = continued & ongoing ‘nuclear proliferation’………Calling upon global American leadership here @ forthwith basis!
*or, within our beloved USA’s case, a manifested/immutable Constitutional Republic
Thank you. In choosing whether or not to become involved in any issue, an organization should consider its purpose and mission, any precedent that would be set, as well as second and third order effects of that decision. Your family and the Foundation clearly did that. Charles Reuning (CO, Camp David, 2007-2009)
Ms. Eisenhower: Thank you for a full and cogent explanation. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Ed ChamblissPrinceton, NJ
Ms. Eisenhower: Thank you for this understandable reasoned explanation. I am concerned for our country and the current apparent political divide. I hope we can find the leadership and an appropriate means to bring the country together peacefully. I have been a long time supported of People to People and the Sister City Program for which I thank your father’s insight and initiative, bringing the world together, peacefully.
Hear ye, hear ye. Well said, Susan.
Not surprisingly, I am less diplomatic. This whole ‘Letter’, a make-work monument to platitude is farcical. It reads like a dewy-eyed ’60s Miss America candidate telling the judges that she thinks we should ‘eliminate poverty and achieve world peace!’
Indeed, it offers his personal gem:
“Our elected officials must lead by example and govern effectively in ways that deliver for the American people.”
Oh … steady, now … “govern effectively in ways that deliver” … one must seek a chair to absorb the profound uniqueness of that revelation. It inspires a whole new humble reverence for ‘Senior Trans-Atlantic Fellows’. (edited}
William Slusher 17 Redwood Ct. Harpers Ferry WV 25425
williamslusher@live.com 509-322-6665
PS Employing the use of pure numerics, remember that INDIA represents the World’s largest participating ‘democracy’—for whatever that’s worthy……..Perhaps another letter can be drafted & directed at them, in the form of a congratulatory gesture of solidarity—notwithstanding inherent ‘unevenness’ concerning governmental treatment of their respective citizenry (i.e. arguably, very non-egalitarian)!
Nicely stated, Mr Wm Slusher……Even ‘high-grade sanctimony’ has its limits!
*worth
I agree with your blog entirely. My conclusion, however, is that we have lost our democracy and don’t know it.
Ethan Welch MD.
I agree with your blog entirely. My conclusion, however, is that we have lost our democracy and don’t know it.
Ethan Welch MD.
Susan:
I just finished reading your book, “How Ike Led.” The book is extremely well written. You present General Eisenhower’s method of leadership in a very clear, precise manner. In one book it was related that Eisenhower once described leadership as “the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” Your grandfather’s style of leadership was documented in this positive manner in your book. I highly recommend the book to all those who want to understand what effective leadership really is and to those who want to understand why President Eisenhower was extremely successful as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II and President of the United States.
Your grandfather was first elected President when I was in High School, and my father was the Republican Campaign Manager for Ike in North Texas. I can recall boxes of “I Like Ike,” buttons on our kitchen table. General Eisenhower was finishing his second term as President when I was a college senior. I can recall the study of Ike’s leadership style in Air Force ROTC, and it was pretty much like you presented in your book.
A journal was kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, and on the last page, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel (Elizabeth Powell) of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. The Founders actually were fearful of a “Democracy,” and they did not create a “Democracy,” they envisioned a representative government, and they formed a Republic. We keep hearing both major political parties that they will “Save Democracy,” when the proper term would be “The Republic.” Neither party will save the Republic—only the People, with God’s guidance, can save the Republic.
Best regards,
Paul David Couch, Lt. Colonel
Retired, USAF
Ms. Eisenhower-
I spent four wonderful years working at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene and I feel that I got to know your grandfather well through his writings, speeches, and recordings. Interpreting his life and career for visitors to the Library and Museum was a distinct pleasure and honor.
I just came across your blog post as a pdf that I had saved in an Eisenhower folder on my laptop. I must admit that at the time I was very surprised by your take on the letter that the Foundations signed, and very disappointed and saddened by the Eisenhower Foundation not taking the opportunity to sign it.
It is now March 14, 2025 and I wonder how you feel now about your decision now. Perhaps if the Foundation had supported the letter and signed it, nothing would have changed, but sometimes it is important to stand up and be counted, no? I think this was one of those opportunities to do so and you chose not to.
Your blog post did not seem to recognize the danger of those times—a danger that is all too clear now. You seem to feel that what has happened to the Republican Party with its current leadership is either a good thing, or simply inconsequential.
The current POTUS’ disregard for democratic norms and traditions, his attempt to disenfranchise millions of citizens by overthrowing a free and fair election, his efforts to tear apart NATO– an organization of which Ike was the first SACEUR, and now his move to destroy the administrative state all point to the error of your thinking. Mr. Trump is a clear and present danger to the Republic and the unwillingness of people like yourself to stand up and speak against it was, and is, unconscionable and, I am sorry to say, cowardly.
With great sadness,
Tim Sheehan
Independence, Missouri