Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ProgressingAmerica
"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. "

Hmmm...One simple name change and it is deja vu all over again...

9 posted on 06/15/2013 3:33:22 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SuperLuminal

"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. "

Many of those points could be applied to the current GOP-e philosophy.
10 posted on 06/15/2013 3:47:44 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: SuperLuminal

Oh, were Mencken only alive today. Sadly half the nation
would hear it and ask, “Wad he say?”.

I want to say that Mencken was the Steyn of his time yet
for all my delight in reading Steyn, he has far to go
to be Mencken.

One can only begin to imagine with what rapier elequence
Mencken would have eviserated Obama.


11 posted on 06/15/2013 4:38:07 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson