FDR & "The Privilege Of Service"
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
So i have been reading the journals of Franklin D. Roosevelt, trying to figure out exactly what was going on in that mans head, when i came across the passage below. Of course, i find it disturbing, particularly that he refers to it as "the wholly unfounded theory of human rights in the name of liberty", suggesting directly that Mill (and the founding fathers) were wrong in asserting liberty as the preeminent right of the individual. But never the less ...
Given Rahm Emanuel's convictions regarding mandatory "civil" service, and given that Obama has talked about ramping up service quite considerably, i found this to be poignant. In fact, i almost wonder if it will ever surface as rallying cry for the left. "Oh look what the great FDR had to say of it!"
Anyhow, folks tell me your thoughts on this passage:
Journal of Franklin D. Roosevelt
May 1st, 1918
It has been a curious phenomenon of our history that political leaders, political parties even, have in the wholly unfounded theory of human rights in the name of liberty, set the license of the individual above the good of the nation.
Carried out to its logical end, liberty thus defined would permit a man to keep a pig sty in the middle of a city or disturb the sleep of his neighbors. The old common law of nuisance has prevented this. Thus the community can protect itself against positive actions of an individual.
But the situation has been less clear on the negative side of individual action.
People have said "A man's home is sacred, it is not our concern what he does with his own life so long as he does not disturb others." And under guise of this doctrine the national slacker has thriven apace. He has been the man who has failed to vote on election day; who has criticized others without offering to help build something better; who has shut himself in among his books or who has concerned himself only in his business; who has opposed universal military service on the ground that it takes away the "liberty of the individual"; who has to be asked three times before he subscribes to the Liberty Loan or the Red Cross; who hopes that Prussianism will fail and who fails himself to help us win the war.
We shall not soon forget that in the first year of the war we have been protected by the troops of France and Britain while we could prepare in safety. That will not always happen in future wars come.
The draft system is now recognized as a fundamental part of our democratic-republican form of government. Universal military service has come to stay.
But if it be true that we have accepted the idea of universal service in its application to war, may it not be true also that we stand on the threshold of another great discovery? Why do we limit that obligation of service to war and wartime needs? Why are you and I and our neighbor in duty bound to help our nation only in time of war? Why not in time of peace also?
War is after all but a passing crisis in the life of a nation. War is a culmination of evils, a sudden attack on the very existence of the body politic. But the national life can never be called free from danger even in the most unruffled periods of peace. The fight is constant, and will be never ending so long as the nation endures.
People have talked much of internationalism, of a brotherhood of men, of the day when nation will no longer rise against nation. But until that day is here, we must recognize existing conditions; we must not forget that we are a nation, an organized body of people under one government by common consent, and that we owe that government the same duty of protection in time of peace as in time of war.
It is a curious trait of most Americans that they have looked on the government as a thing apart from their daily lives. They have tolerated it, or criticized it or ignored it as something that was no concern of theirs.
And it is interesting to note that for generations the actual governing of the nation has been more or less left in the hands of a little group of men who have made this work almost a profession.
It matters very little whether you live in Boston or in New York or in Philadelphia or in New Orleans, you will find that your neighbor or friend who takes an active interest in the affairs of your local or your state or your national government is an exception.
Perhaps this is due to money grubbing, perhaps to that same old theory of "individual liberty," but it is true nevertheless that we have not yet recognized the obligation of universal service in its relation to the everyday affairs of the city and state and nation.
We who are of today, you who are of tomorrow, have before us an opportunity that is great. It is a pity to call it the duty of service. That word duty so often implies a disagreeable task which must be done, such for instance as the duty of being nice to one's mother-in-law.
Should we not rather, speak of the privilege of service?
Given Rahm Emanuel's convictions regarding mandatory "civil" service, and given that Obama has talked about ramping up service quite considerably, i found this to be poignant. In fact, i almost wonder if it will ever surface as rallying cry for the left. "Oh look what the great FDR had to say of it!"
Anyhow, folks tell me your thoughts on this passage:
Journal of Franklin D. Roosevelt
May 1st, 1918
It has been a curious phenomenon of our history that political leaders, political parties even, have in the wholly unfounded theory of human rights in the name of liberty, set the license of the individual above the good of the nation.
Carried out to its logical end, liberty thus defined would permit a man to keep a pig sty in the middle of a city or disturb the sleep of his neighbors. The old common law of nuisance has prevented this. Thus the community can protect itself against positive actions of an individual.
But the situation has been less clear on the negative side of individual action.
People have said "A man's home is sacred, it is not our concern what he does with his own life so long as he does not disturb others." And under guise of this doctrine the national slacker has thriven apace. He has been the man who has failed to vote on election day; who has criticized others without offering to help build something better; who has shut himself in among his books or who has concerned himself only in his business; who has opposed universal military service on the ground that it takes away the "liberty of the individual"; who has to be asked three times before he subscribes to the Liberty Loan or the Red Cross; who hopes that Prussianism will fail and who fails himself to help us win the war.
We shall not soon forget that in the first year of the war we have been protected by the troops of France and Britain while we could prepare in safety. That will not always happen in future wars come.
The draft system is now recognized as a fundamental part of our democratic-republican form of government. Universal military service has come to stay.
But if it be true that we have accepted the idea of universal service in its application to war, may it not be true also that we stand on the threshold of another great discovery? Why do we limit that obligation of service to war and wartime needs? Why are you and I and our neighbor in duty bound to help our nation only in time of war? Why not in time of peace also?
War is after all but a passing crisis in the life of a nation. War is a culmination of evils, a sudden attack on the very existence of the body politic. But the national life can never be called free from danger even in the most unruffled periods of peace. The fight is constant, and will be never ending so long as the nation endures.
People have talked much of internationalism, of a brotherhood of men, of the day when nation will no longer rise against nation. But until that day is here, we must recognize existing conditions; we must not forget that we are a nation, an organized body of people under one government by common consent, and that we owe that government the same duty of protection in time of peace as in time of war.
It is a curious trait of most Americans that they have looked on the government as a thing apart from their daily lives. They have tolerated it, or criticized it or ignored it as something that was no concern of theirs.
And it is interesting to note that for generations the actual governing of the nation has been more or less left in the hands of a little group of men who have made this work almost a profession.
It matters very little whether you live in Boston or in New York or in Philadelphia or in New Orleans, you will find that your neighbor or friend who takes an active interest in the affairs of your local or your state or your national government is an exception.
Perhaps this is due to money grubbing, perhaps to that same old theory of "individual liberty," but it is true nevertheless that we have not yet recognized the obligation of universal service in its relation to the everyday affairs of the city and state and nation.
We who are of today, you who are of tomorrow, have before us an opportunity that is great. It is a pity to call it the duty of service. That word duty so often implies a disagreeable task which must be done, such for instance as the duty of being nice to one's mother-in-law.
Should we not rather, speak of the privilege of service?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
A bit dated you might say, but the gist is that we should all participate in building and maintaining society. Also a bit authoritarian, but those were authoritarian times. The date suggests it was said during WW1, which didn't end until november 11th 1918, if I remember correctly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Right or wrong, good or bad, most people want to live in freedom and not be bothered. Most people don't want to see others suffer, but anyone who is honest with himself will admit that his own individual freedom is the most important thing, and freedom for everyone else is a distant second. That's why law should be based primarily on preserving individual freedom.
The problem, as FDR points out, surfaces when people don't care about the suffering of others. That's the tricky part of having a government. A government has to preserve as many individual freedoms as possible while, at the same time, force them to understand and accept that the welfare of others is critical to their own. That's why we have taxes and elections. Most people do not want to actively deal with the concerns of others, so we pay a small group of people to do that. Of course, this also becomes a problem because greedy people infiltrate the government and use its authority for their own personal benefit. That's a recurring issue, and (most likely) it always will be. But that doesn't mean anyone owes the government any service. The government owes it to US to keep itself clear of these greedy scumbags who ruin it. We pay for it...we pay them to take care of this stuff. And sometimes, they don't do it. And when they don't do it, we owe it to ourselves to do more than throw money at it. We owe it to OURSELVES, not the government.
I think individual liberty in it's simplest form is "I'm getting mine and FUCK YOU for getting yours.I will do what I selfishly have to in order to preserve MY individual liberty"really it's selfishness and does nothing to help the greater good and by extension the "individual".
Strange to be a Human Being. For myself I have this desire to be independant and an individual. But I am dependant on so many things from others.
Lastly I think this journal writing was really a call to action. To get the "Individual" to be fully engaged in government, society,etc.....
To be informed, aware, and accountable to ourselves.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14