Posted on 06/15/2013 6:28:48 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
He didn't believe in democracy; he believed simply in government.
In "Roosevelt, an Autopsy", Mencken makes the following observations:
I have no doubt that Roosevelt himself, carried away by the emotional storms of the moment and especially by the quasi-religious monkey-shines that marked the first Progressive convention, gradually convinced himself that at least some of the doctrinaires, in the midst of all their imbecility, yet preached a few ideas that were workable, and perhaps even sound. But at bottom he was against them, and not only in the matter of their specific sure cures, but also in the larger matter of their childish faith in the wisdom and virtue of the plain people. Roosevelt, for all his fluent mastery of democratic counter-words, democratic gestures and all the rest of the armamentarium of the mob-master, had no such faith in his heart of hearts. He didn't believe in democracy; he believed simply in government. His remedy for all the great pangs and longings of existence was not a dispersion of authority, but a hard concentration of authority. He was not in favor of unlimited experiment; he was in favor of a rigid control from above, a despotism of inspired prophets and policemen. He was not for democracy as his followers understood democracy, and as it actually is and must be; he was for a paternalism of the true Bismarckian pattern, almost of the Napoleonic or Ludendorffian pattern - a paternalism concerning itself with all things, from the regulation of coal-mining and meat-packing to the regulation of spelling and marital rights. His instincts were always those of the property-owning Tory, not those of the romantic Liberal. All the fundamental objects of Liberalism - free speech, unhampered enterprise, the least possible governmental interference - were abhorrent to him. Even when, for campaign purposes, he came to terms with the Liberals his thoughts always ranged far afield. When he tackled the trusts the thing that he had in his mind's eye was not the restoration of competition but the subordination of all private trusts to one great national trust, with himself at its head. And when he attacked the courts it was not because they put their own prejudice before the law but because they refused to put his prejudices before the law.
This concept of "a despotism of inspired prophets" is a very good way to describe the never ending myriad of "expert panels" that progressives love to rely on.
Sounds like Democrats
It’s the historic norm. From tribal thugs to the high-tech political used-car salesmen, they all want to take your stuff. It’s a lot easier when they can keep you in fear, poverty and/or ignorance.
srbfl
This is basically the democrat party of today.
He was a progressive just like Obama or John McCain.
was it Jefferson who said that our constitution was made for a moral and religious people?...and that it would not work otherwise?
as much as so many people and especially freepers put down others because they are not "pure" conservatives, when it comes right down to it, doesn't the CHARACTER of our leaders mean the most?....if they don't have character, nothing matters....if they DO have character, even the worst govt can work...
for all of our hand wringing,even a McCain or a Romney had more character and patriotism in their little toe than the present circumstance..we would be better off, period...
John Adams, I believe.
That's all it really takes to make it in Washington.
Logical positivist’s and Altruistic Sociopaths should be kept far away from government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986.html
Teddy wanted to do away with all private property ownership.
Teddy Roosevelt and his “progressive” Bull ... Moose ... party led the effort to ratify the 16th and 17th amendments. In doing so, he utterly destroyed the Founders’ vision of this republic.
The following are excerpts from Noah Webster's 1802 Address on Celebration of the Declaration of Independence. --------- "The natural consequence of too much popularity is, that it enables the possessor to violate the laws and constitution of his country, and sacrifice its interests with impunity . . . . "To be a tyrant with any tolerable degree of safety, a man must be fully possessed of the confidence of the people. Charles the first of England extended the royal prerogative to an unwarrantable length, and lost his head . . . but that prince could not have sent a detachment of three hundred men to drive the commons of England from their hall, and have effected his purpose. That act of despotism was reserved for the republican Cromwell, the friend of the people. James the second was an arbitrary man, a catholic, and odious to the English nation . . . he was, therefore, compelled to abdicate his throne. But his successor, William, a friend of the whigs, ascended the throne upon a tide of popularity; and he could deliberately sign an illegal and barbarous warrant for the murder of the whole village of Glencoe, in Scotland, and never be called in question for the murderous deed! "Oh, 'tis excellent," says the poet, "To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." - "The man who only flatters and cringes to gain applause, is a saint, compared with the man who tramples on law and constitution to secure the popularity his arts have obtained, and to retain the confidence of a party. There is something extremely contemptible in the factitious character of a popularity-seeker, or mere man of the people.
MEASURE FOR MEASURE.
"The open advocate of a strong government is subject to popular odium, his encroachments are eyed with jealousy, or resisted by force. But the hypocritical pretender to patriotism acquires, in the confidence of the people, a giant's force, and he may use it like a giant. The people, like artless females, are liable to be seduced, not by the men they hate or suspect, but by those they love.
"Nor is it among the least evils proceeding from the ambition of popular favor, that the friends of the people are willing to secure it, by relaxing the energy of the laws. They know that legal restraints are odious, and will hazard the public peace, rather than not gratify the licentious propensities of their partizans.
. . . .
It’s sad to think one with such intellectual might and great potential to lead was really just Chuck Schumer - reaching to the lowest common denominator whether he believed in it or not, just to win elections or get a good article or applause. See the other thread and take the time to digest HL Mencken. Masterpiece.
...which of us doesn't really believe down deep that OUR personal way of living, thinking, behaving is the BEST way...
You're entirely correct, cherry, but how many of us believe we're entitled to harness the raw power of the national government to enforce our preferences upon everyone?
Great post. Damn violent elitists. Damn progressives. Damn fascists.
Your historical, yet still pertinent examples (the legal tentacles still poison us today) are good ammunition for all types of discussions and warnings and arguments with our friends today who are not yet “lost” to fascism, but who go along unthinkingly with the status quo. They listen better if we criticize a “Republican.”
I have lots of nice friends with the best of intentions who blindly support “nice” appearing government and never see how violent and elitist it really is.
Orthodox Americans abhor ALL the fascist mistakes our country has made, even “Republican” ones, and we are on guard not to fall into that type of thinking, leading to fascism, which happens so easily.
The RINOs take us to hell more slowly, but otherwise I don’t much care who “started it” Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals, Bush or Whoever — there is enough blame among all the “labels” for our loss of freedom and Orthodox Americanism.
For the simple: Everybody stop thinking you/we should boss everyone else around! Bossing is against the permanent rules and is never allowed! Quit breaking the rules and bossing everyone! The road to hell is paved with your good intentions!
Sigh...
Your historical, yet still pertinent examples are good ammunition for all types of discussions and warnings and argumentsThat's what every bit of this is for. Their history is one of the best weapons we've got.
You’re entirely correct, cherry, but how many of us believe we’re entitled to harness the raw power of the national government to enforce our preferences upon everyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.