Will any presidential candidate pledge to dismantle the military/industrial/pharma/tech/media complex?

President Dwight Eisenhower delivered a stern warning in his 1961 farewell address to the nation, of the need to rein in the growing power of what he termed the "military/industrial complex" and its influence on government policy. 

Not just weapons contracts

Six decades later, the complex has expanded to include Big Pharma, mainstream media, and Big Tech. These industries' growing influence and power have voters increasingly concerned. Various candidates have taken a stance against perpetual war and media-Big Tech censorship, yet only one candidate has spoken out against Big Pharma as well. But first, what worried Eisenhower?

Peacetime weapons

Eisenhower's landmark address informed the nation of a major change that took place after WWII as the U.S. confronted the communist threat — the establishment of a permanent, government funded industry that relied on the demand for weaponry to turn a profit.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. 

But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This permanent industry, with the federal government as its principal client, had both the incentive to influence politicians to favor military interventions and the resources (from existing government contracts) to do so. A perpetual cycle was thus created where a portion of taxpayer funds distributed to weapons makers were donated back to the politicians who approved the spending. Hence Eisenhower's call to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military/industrial complex."

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. 

We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Eisenhower did not limit his concern to the bilking of the American tax payer, but considered the complex a danger to freedom itself.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Fears realized

Eisenhower would presumably not be surprised by an Open Secrets report on Northrop Grumman Corporation revealing that the massive weapons manufacturer has:

• revenues of over $36 billion annually
• redirected millions from that revenue to both Democrat and Republican politicians
• spent over $10 million on lobbyists annually
• 28 out of their 35 lobbyists who previously held government jobs in what Open Secrets calls a revolving door
• focused their lobbying on increasing the size of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act

Big Tech

The influence of Big Tech is even more alarming, as the corporations not only donate part of their revenues to politicians but then use their platforms to censor information that would damage those politicians. Those same politicians then provide the Big Tech companies with protection for liability for material posted on their platforms even though the protection was meant only for uncensored platforms.

Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) revealed the extent of government–Big Tech collusion in a speech on the Senate floor.

Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits have also revealed improper coordination between government agencies and social media companies to restrict speech here in America. 

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it has communicated with more than 30 federal officials about content moderation on its platform — including senior employees at the FDA, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the White House.  YouTube, which is owned by Google, disclosed it had such communications with 11 federal officials.

The disturbing truth is that when Biden Administration officials don’t like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their allies at unaccountable Big Tech companies to silence it. . . .

Government cannot use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment. . . . 

The Disclose Government Censorship Act would require that government officials publicly disclose communications with Big Tech regarding actions to restrict speech. . . . It would also require a cooling-off period to address the revolving door between government and Big Tech.

Big Pharma

Pharmaceutical companies, as well, have outpaced defense contractors in their influencing of government officials to guarantee their sales. They openly lobby for their products (vaccines) to be placed on vaccination schedules, mandated for entry to school and certain jobs and even for laws to make them free of liability for damages caused by their products. 

Big Media

At the same time, Big Pharma heavily advertise on news outlets, ensuring that no mainstream news organization will risk losing the funds that pay their salaries by allowing negative coverage of vaccines or medications. News outlets thus make no mention of the psychiatric medications taken by perpetrators of mass shootings.

The one?

Eisenhower's successor, John F. Kennedy, quickly found himself at odds with the military/industrial complex as well. History Today reports, “He told his inner circle ‘the military are mad’ and if ‘we do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive’.” His nephew, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says JFK was killed by the CIA. 

RFK, Jr. adds that “the CIA was implicated” in his father's assassination as well (49:52 of the video interview) and supports the release of the one person jailed for that murder.

RFK, Jr. founded and runs the Children’s Health Defense which fights, “corruption, mass surveillance and censorship that put profits before people” and advocates for “worldwide rights to health freedom and bodily autonomy.” The non-profit organization documents the dangers of pharmaceutical products, be it the “complete fraud” of Pfizer's COVID mRNA injections or the “known dangers” of some childhood vaccinations.

RFK has also spoken out about the pharmaceutical industry's role in mass shootings.

Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SSRIs or some other psychiatric drug... and NIH will not study that because it will offend the pharmaceutical industry.

And RFK, Jr. opposes the government's use of “ubiquitous surveillance cameras.”

Will any other candidate challenge the expanding complex of industries enmeshing itself within the federal government?

See our previous article on RFK, Jr.:

Is RFK Jr. still pushing Cap & Trade to curb carbon emissions?