Legacy

[mundens]

I agree with Kung Fu Monkey, this little gem from the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt about how unpatriotic "standing by the president" actually is, needs to be repeated in as many places and mediums as possible:

He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"The American dream"

AAAARGH!

Are you American? I know the answer is no, so why spout that when you don't live in the country and never have? The only thing the US ever had going for it was a fast pool of easily exploitable resources that propped up their standard of living for a while. I'd argue that the New Zealand dream of an egalitarian society is far more rounded and achievable than the American dream of a V8 for everyone.

There is no reason why someone has to live below the poverty line just because they work in primary industry. In fact given the relatively small number of people needed to actually grow crops in a mechanised society, that argument holds no water at all...

Chris

[(Anonymous)]

I meant "a vast pool". Ooops.

[mashugenah.livejournal.com]

"The American Dream" is really just the most easily recognisable and distilled version of the same underlying principle of all liberal philosophy. That is, that a person can, through hard work and good luck, rise to a position of wealth and influence. It is this optimism about the condition of a human life which is at the very heart of virtually all western political thought. It rejects the caste system which is still somewhat entrenched in India, or the class system that prevailed in England and has nothing to do with a specific car you'd like to drive.

There is no reason why someone has to live below the poverty line just because they work in primary industry.

This is true; but is also true that by-and-large, your farmed will be poorer than your marketting executive, despite the absolute necessity of the former and the dubious plausibility of the latter. The divide will be exacerbated if the marketing exec also actually owns the farm - and this is the situation we have in numerous parts of the world.

To that extent the land-seizures of Mugabe's regime have a rational basis - white people got their advantage by subjugating the natives, and there is no inherent market force which will dislodge them from that position. His mistake was in execution, since those to whom farms were granted lacked the capability of running them. It was, I suppose a radical form of "affirmative action", and an implicit rejection of the American Dream, viz that it is just that: A Dream.