I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
Hear the voice of Dwight D. Eisenhower, soldier and statesman, who had seen the fire of war and longed for the calm of peace: “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” These words are not the idle musings of a dreamer, but the testimony of a man who commanded armies in the world’s greatest conflict, and then as President of the United States carried the burden of avoiding another. Having seen war’s horror, he spoke of the deeper truth—that the common heart of humanity beats not for conquest, but for peace.
The meaning is clear: governments, bound by pride, power, and the machinery of politics, often fail to pursue what the people themselves most desire. Nations may cloak their ambitions in banners of security or honor, yet it is the people, the mothers who bury sons, the workers who rebuild shattered homes, the children whose laughter is silenced by fear—these are the ones who truly hunger for peace. Eisenhower declares that if governments will not heed this yearning, they will eventually be swept aside by it, for the will of humanity for peace is stronger than the schemes of rulers.
Consider the origin of these words. Eisenhower had led the Allied forces in World War II, commanding men through carnage that scarred a generation. Later, as President during the Cold War, he knew the temptation of governments to escalate, to arm, to threaten. Yet he saw that ordinary people—Americans, Russians, Europeans alike—desired something different. They wanted to live, to raise families, to walk in safety. His wisdom was forged not in ivory towers, but on the battlefields of Normandy and the tense chambers of Washington, where he understood both the cost of war and the fragility of peace.
History confirms his vision. Recall the Vietnam War. Governments justified it with strategies of containment and power, but the people—students, workers, parents—rose up in protest. They marched in streets, they sang songs of resistance, they cried out that the cost was too great. At last, their voice forced the powerful to listen, and the tide of the war turned. Here was Eisenhower’s prophecy fulfilled: the people themselves, yearning for peace, moved more mightily than governments had planned.
The teaching is timeless: the hope for peace is not to be found in the ambitions of leaders alone, but in the hearts of the people. Governments may speak of defense, but the people cry for healing. Rulers may prepare for war, but the people yearn for home. It is the people who must bear the suffering of war, and therefore it is the people who must insist on the triumph of peace. Eisenhower’s words remind us that history’s greatest transformations are born not from the decrees of palaces, but from the rising will of ordinary souls.
So what lesson shall we take? If you desire peace, do not wait for governments to grant it. Be the peacemaker yourself. Build communities where trust grows instead of suspicion. Raise your voice against injustice, even when leaders are slow to hear. Live in a way that resists hatred, that chooses reconciliation over revenge, that builds bridges instead of walls. For when the will of the people for peace is united, no government can forever stand against it.
Practical wisdom flows from this: teach your children compassion, so they will not become soldiers of hate. Speak peace into conflicts, even the small quarrels of daily life, for every act of peace is a seed of a greater harvest. Support leaders who prize peace over power, and hold accountable those who profit from war. And never surrender to despair, for Eisenhower himself, who knew the darkest face of conflict, still believed in the enduring power of the people’s longing for peace.
So remember, O children of tomorrow: governments may falter, but the human spirit longs for peace. When rulers chase war, let the people rise and demand peace. When leaders build walls, let the people tear them down with love. And when the day comes that governments stand aside, let humanity at last embrace the peace it has always desired. For peace is not the dream of the weak—it is the destiny of the strong in heart, and it is the true inheritance of civilization.
TTNguyen Thi Tam
This quote from Eisenhower brings up an important point about the disconnect between the desires of ordinary people and the actions of governments. But is it really that simple? While people may want peace, does that necessarily translate into a unified effort to demand it? How do we move beyond individual desires and create mass movements that can truly influence governments? Can citizens really force governments to step aside, or is the system too rigid for that to happen?
HNHoai Nguyen
Eisenhower’s perspective is intriguing, but I wonder if he’s overlooking how deeply political systems are embedded in global conflicts. While it’s easy to say that people want peace, aren’t there many examples where governments benefit from war or conflict? If people are so determined to pursue peace, what exactly needs to happen for governments to ‘get out of the way’? Is there an actual pathway for such change, or is it just a hopeful thought?
TKPham Tuan Kiet
I love Eisenhower’s optimism here, but I’m curious if it’s a bit too idealistic. Do people really want peace more than governments, or are there competing interests at play? It feels like governments often act in their own interests, which may not always align with the public’s desire for peace. How do we reconcile the public’s peaceful intentions with the political realities that keep leading us into conflict? Can ordinary people really make that much of a difference?
TQThu Quynh
Eisenhower’s quote really speaks to the power of collective will. It makes me wonder, though, how realistic is it for people to actually overcome the obstacles set by governments? While it’s clear that the public desires peace, how much influence do ordinary citizens truly have when political structures seem so deeply entrenched in power struggles and war? Is it possible for people to drive change on such a global scale, or do we always need government intervention?