Criticism for the Sake of Criticism, What's the Use?

4/11/07 | Reaganesque

[Reaganesque]

Theodore Roosevelt had this to say about criticism:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Related quotes from Theodore Roosevelt:

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891)
"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." (1894)

[Reaganesque]

Somewhere along the line, the political process here in the US and elsewhere has lost sight of what President Roosevelt had to say about criticism. All too often, criticism of an opponent is used in place of advocating the critic's own ideas or positions. Now, historically speaking, this tendency is nothing new. But I think it is fair to state that this tendency, recently, has been taken to a new low. Liberals have made this an art form with their constant, unhinged, baseless criticism of George W. Bush and Republicans in general. Unfortunately, Republicans resort to this tactic all too often as well as evidenced by the flame wars that erupt when anyone mentions either Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or any of the other presidential candidates. So, I thought it would be healthy for us here at FR to discuss this tendency and what we could or should do about it.

What do you have to say about this, FR?

[Reaganesque]

Ping

[Clock King]

Which is why I almost hate to watch a State of Union address. There is always an inevitable "reply" from the "opposition". If GWB got up there and said he was going to make the US a Socialist Paradise, the Dems would criticize it just for the sake of doing so. It's like watch to school children go at it. This current atmosphere has destroyed any chance of sorting out real extremely complex problems (like national healthcare or WOT) that demand long-winded debate.

What can we do about it? The only solution I see is (as low level individuals) to continue debating those we meet in life (family, friends, acquaintences) and push them to think. Crush political correctness by refusing to acknowledge it. Let people get their feelings hurt, but don't be mean or personal just for the sake of doing so. State your points, point out the flaws in their points, and LISTEN to what flaws they point out in yours. Maybe, over a long period of time (40 years or more), we can get enough people thinking to the point where decent politicians are elected. Decent meaning that they are elected for their positions and not just on popularity or rock stardom (Obama). My 2 centavos.

[rlmorel]

This is a MAJOR problem with liberals, and infests their thought process (if there is such a thing)

Liberals think that dissent and criticism are the highest forms of patriotism there are.

The problem is, they never stop to think whether their justification or criticism has any merit.

[Cold Heat]

Somewhere along the line, the political process here in the US and elsewhere has lost sight of what President Roosevelt had to say about criticism. All too often, criticism of an opponent is used in place of advocating the critic's own ideas or positions.

Just look at the democrat idea's from the 2006 election! There was not a single idea, new or otherwise that they put forth. They only criticized! And they won!

I was thinking along these lines last night, as I watched the three cable news outlets trying to fill their 24 hours of air time. It is getting to be a joke...A ridiculous joke, as Americans bounce emotionally from one media created crisis to another.

They don't even see that none of the manufactured problems have anything to do with importance, or meaningful things. They are cheap, and superficial diversions while the real underlying problems are not discussed or addressed, except by sound bites and innuendos.

I don't know how you fix this. I don't know how you make people understand that they are being manipulated by the media. I don't know how to say to someone that their criticisms are meaningless and totally unimportant as well as being based on a lemming like follow the leader game where they are the puppet pawns and the media ratings are the puppet masters. That everything that they think to be of critical importance at the moment, is totally useless garbage.

Rant over.....

[redgirlinabluestate]

Teddy was right. This is a huge problem for the liberals and has begun to creep into FR as well.

One of my favorite Teddy quotes:

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
San Francisco, CA, May 13, 1903

A gentleman, but still a manly man.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Let’s not fall into the trap of confusing vigorous debate about the candidates, with baseless criticism . Every candidate should be subject to scrutiny on the issues and judged accordingly .

Now , a good example of baseless criticism, is how the Dims act towards Bush .

[redgirlinabluestate]

You mean it’s not always Bush’s fault? Phew! ;o)

[Blind Eye Jones]

Generally, they never erected any statues for critics... they do for politicians, artists, soldiers, etc. But the modern world is too hung up on action. Perhaps not enough contemplation, nor enough slowing down to be centered, balanced and at easy. Socrates was a critic and Athens put him to death... but states, like people, also have the opportunity to learn something, and political states or regimes should know their weakness -- which is what a good critic does: expose weakness. Plato outlines the weakness of democracy in the Republic, as well as other regimes, and we should pay attention. Plato was never a flatter of democracy. Sometimes the critic is your best friend.