"A Republic, if you can keep it."

He says a lot in a few words here:

"If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest."
 
PoliTalker said:
Sure would be nice to hear a president talk like this:

"Of one man in especial, beyond any one else, the citizens of a republic should beware, and that is of the man who appeals to them to support him on the ground that he is hostile to other citizens of the republic, that he will secure for those who elect him, in one shape or another, profit at the expense of other citizens of the republic. It makes no difference whether he appeals to class hatred or class interest, to religious or antireligious prejudice. The man who makes such an appeal should always be presumed to make it for the sake of furthering his own interest. The very last thing an intelligent and self-respecting member of a democratic community should do is to reward any public man because that public man says that he will get the private citizen something to which this private citizen is not entitled, or will gratify some emotion or animosity which this private citizen ought not to possess. "
Click to expand...
Holy Shit! Timeless stuff.

The speech was in 1910 and I found this part about war interesting:

War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is the right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be, "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
Holy Shit! Timeless stuff.

The speech was in 1910 and I found this part about war interesting:

War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is the right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be, "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.
Click to expand...

Prophetic, too, seeing as how that was just a few years before WWI.

And mind you, he was speaking to the FRENCH.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



Prophetic, too, seeing as how that was just a few years before WWI.

And mind you, he was speaking to the FRENCH.
Click to expand...

LOL. Good point about the French.

Who do you think he's referencing here?:

Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
good words...........thanks
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good phrases in the speech, even if it's about 4-6 pages too long. One is this:

In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that he ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other. He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and he must also have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good....

He ended with the paragraph below. The times were certainly different, but in some ways the same as now.

...The good citizen in a republic must first of all be able to hold his own. He is no good citizen unless he has the ability which will make him work hard and which at need will make him fight hard. The good citizen is not a good citizen unless he is an efficient citizen....

.... To judge a man merely by success is an abhorrent wrong; and if the people at large habitually so judge men, if they grow to condone wickedness because the wicked man triumphs, they show their inability to understand that in the last analysis free institutions rest upon the character of citizenship, and that by such admiration of evil they prove themselves unfit for liberty.
 
Ouch!! Berning and AOC won't like this part:

The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impracticable visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the imbittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcomings, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things...

...We can just as little afford to follow the doctrinaires of an extreme individualism as the doctrinaires of an extreme socialism.

A 110 years ago. SS, DD
 
It's too bad Teddy's ideology isn't supported by more American leaders:

Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of levelling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try to carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and to those who do it.

It's 1910, but he's spent a few pages on Socialism vs. Individualism....in a French University.
 
PoliTalker said:
Leaving no stone unturned, he hits on racism:

"Probably the best test of true love of liberty in any country in the way in which minorities are treated in that country."
Click to expand...

Finally caught up to you:

The good citizen will demand liberty for himself, and as a matter of pride he will see to it that others receive the liberty which he thus claims as his own. Probably the best test of true love of liberty in any country is the way in which minorities are treated in that country. Not only should there be complete liberty in matters of religion and opinion, but complete liberty for each man to lead his life as he desires, provided only that in so doing he does not wrong his neighbor....

...The man who, if born to wealth and power, exploits and ruins his less fortunate brethren is at heart the same as the greedy and violent demagogue who excites those who have not property to plunder those who have. The gravest wrong upon his country is inflicted by that man, whatever his station, who seeks to make his countrymen divide primarily on the line that separates class from class, occupation from occupation, men of more wealth from men of less wealth, instead of remembering that the only safe standard is that which judges each man on his worth as a man, whether he be rich or poor, without regard to his profession or to his station in life.
 
Awesome:

"Yes, my friend, and if you will steal for me you will steal from me."

Now, the same principle which applies in private life applies also in public life. If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest.

3qawsp.jpg
 
PoliTalker said:
He says a lot in a few words here:

"If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest."
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand: :hand:
 
PoliTalker said:
The very last thing an intelligent and self-respecting member of a democratic community should do is to reward any public man because that public man says that he will get the private citizen something to which this private citizen is not entitled, or will gratify some emotion or animosity which this private citizen ought not to possess. "
Click to expand...

Heck, do I have to give my stimulus check back?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
without a full, active police state? surely you can expand upon that to show us why that is, right?
Click to expand...

Think about it: capitalists exist by stealing a good chunk of the price of commodities from those who produce them. To stop them taking back their property they need a police force. To steal from other countries they need an army. To keep the mugs quiet they need schools to brainwash them. And so on, and so on and so on.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
LOL. Good point about the French.

Who do you think he's referencing here?:

Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, it sounds like he's describing Trump, but he wasn't even born yet when TR said that. Still, it seems that he must be talking about some specific person, even though he doesn't mention any names. I don't know enough about history to make a reasonable guess. Who were the slick-talking charlatans of the day?
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
Finally caught up to you:

The good citizen will demand liberty for himself, and as a matter of pride he will see to it that others receive the liberty which he thus claims as his own. Probably the best test of true love of liberty in any country is the way in which minorities are treated in that country. Not only should there be complete liberty in matters of religion and opinion, but complete liberty for each man to lead his life as he desires, provided only that in so doing he does not wrong his neighbor....

...The man who, if born to wealth and power, exploits and ruins his less fortunate brethren is at heart the same as the greedy and violent demagogue who excites those who have not property to plunder those who have. The gravest wrong upon his country is inflicted by that man, whatever his station, who seeks to make his countrymen divide primarily on the line that separates class from class, occupation from occupation, men of more wealth from men of less wealth, instead of remembering that the only safe standard is that which judges each man on his worth as a man, whether he be rich or poor, without regard to his profession or to his station in life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I liked that one. It's amazing. Nearly all the arguments seen in this forum were covered by TR in that one speech. Good thing it was springtime. Those people would have been dying of the heat had he tried to deliver an oratory that long in the summer.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Well, of course, it sounds like he's describing Trump, but he wasn't even born yet when TR said that. Still, it seems that he must be talking about some specific person, even though he doesn't mention any names. I don't know enough about history to make a reasonable guess. Who were the slick-talking charlatans of the day?
Click to expand...

I think he's referencing a the charlatan/snake oil salesmen of the day as a group even though he might have had a name or two in mind. Regardless, he sees it as a main problem of the day.

In many ways, this speech reminds me that, even though tech changes, people do not. The same type of assholes causing problems in his day are also plaguing ours.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

I'm sure a lot of the recipients did not need it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What they need are jobs. The whole "give a man a fish or teach them how to fish" concept. Sure, for some, the $1200 put food on the table for a month or more, but then what?

Teddy's speech spoke about good people needing to work, to carry their weight. I've always felt that wasn't like a parent telling a child to do chores, but as the path people need to take to have self-worth. How can a person have self-worth if they are a mooch? A parasite on taxpayers?
 
PoliTalker said:
Man, what an inspiration that guy was:

"
In a republic, to be successful we must learn to combine intensity of conviction with a broad tolerance of difference of conviction. Wide differences of opinion in matters of religious, political, and social belief must exist if conscience and intellect alike are not be stunted, if there is to be room for healthy growth. Bitter internecine hatreds, based on such differences, are signs, not of earnestness of belief, but of that fanaticism which, whether religious or antireligious, democratic or antidemocratic, it itself but a manifestation of the gloomy bigotry which has been the chief factor in the downfall of so many, many nations. "
Click to expand...

Can't say we weren't warned. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top