By the time Napoleon made himself emperor, he had won the Battles of Lodi, of Arcole, of Rivoli, of the Pyramids and of Marengo. And had promugulated the Napoleonic Code. He had yet to write a single autobiography.
Bump.
Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time-- a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric.
In his famous 1911 speech at the Sorbone, Theodore Roosevelt basically delineated what's wrong with socialism:There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.Socialism is nothing but criticism and second guessing of those who actually do things. Journalists don't catch criminals and they don't fight wars and they don't provide us with food, clothing, or shelter- all they do is report on any failure of the police, the military, or the businessman to provide security, food, clothing, and shelter which meets the journalist's arbitrary standards. So journalism is inherently simpatico with socialists. Indeed, similar comments apply to teachers, intellectuals and trial lawyers. And, it scarcely need be said, unionists.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 them 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, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
And that is why journalists and teachers assign positive labels to socialists.The word "socialism" itself seems to me to be, on etymological grounds, somewhat tendentious in that socialism relies on government coercion to, at least theoretically, accomplish its utopia. What is "social" about socialism? In America, "socialism" did not sell as a brand. But since journalists were simpatico with socialism, it was a matter of no difficulty for socialists to rebrand "socialism" as "liberalism." Of course "liberalism" was a preexisting word which meant pretty much the opposite of socialism, but "liberalism" was popular as a political philosophy in America, so in a relatively brief period in the 1920s link the meaning of the word was inverted. In the post-Reagan era, of course, "liberal" has become the dreaded "L-word" which socialists do not want to have applied to them any more than they wish to be called the socialists that they are. But, no matter - socialists can always coin - or coopt - another euphemism. Such as "progressive."