Historic Quotations Post II:
In terms of a defense of democracy and its virtues, I can think of no greater summation than the Four Freedoms speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in January of 1941:
If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
Note that the first two freedoms are defined as the freedom to speak, and the freedom to worship. These are held to be positive freedoms guaranteed as a means to act, not to be acted upon. In the second cases, FDR defines freedom from in terms of abstractions. I find this to be particularly important in terms of the modern age of war on the abstract concept of terror. He does not define the freedom related to abstractions as being free to be anything, but the freedom from being affected by particular concepts or abstractions. The reason, to me, is because an abstraction is just that: abstract. Artificial. The product of the human mind, and if the mind and body are freed of them, they no longer exist.
Here FDR also lays out what is vital for the endurance of democracy:
As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fighting for.
The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.
For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic
systems are simple. They are: Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
Note that in addition to speaking of abstractions such as preservation of civil liberty and security for those who need it, he provides concrete requirements such as equality of opportunity and jobs for those who can work, and the ending of special privilege for the few. It is this linking of the abstract concept of liberty and freedom with concrete action, in a real world sense that I think is lacking in too many democratic politicians of the present. They advocate what for political democracy is the equivalent of the theological concept of cheap grace: democracy can be a matter of a few seconds' involvement without much further consequence.
It is a matter of sound-bites instead of substantive policy. The problem is that democracy, to endure, *does* need involvement. It does not need conscious attempts to deny the necessity of voting and the franchise to those who must exercise them. Democracy must also accept that people in a democracy may well democratically vote for policies its most vocal proponents disagree with. This is the nature of the beast, the only true changes in it can and will and must come from the involvement of the many to push our particular policies. It is very easy to create and to blame conspiracies on all sides, and to attribute to political leadership greater deftness and skill than they actually possess. But if people in democracy vote in great numbers for something you don't like, the answer and remedy is a very bluntly simple one: get active and organize people for the policies you want and vote the bums out that you disagree with. Not doing this and attributing it to the great cabal is ultimately a feel-good exercise that does nothing to solve the actual issue. Whether or not people want to hear this is irrelevant. The truth is seldom what anyone wishes to hear, and those who lecture others with it often tend to have our own mistakes that we seldom, if ever, like to admit. Whether or not we like to admit them, however, does not mean that those who lecture others should be unaware that they, too, would be on the receiving end and not just the giving. For the other essential part of working for democracy must be the honest, humble admission of mistakes, and not only when caught red-handed in them. The spirit of the pure crusade is incompatible in the long term with the survival of democracy.
If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
Note that the first two freedoms are defined as the freedom to speak, and the freedom to worship. These are held to be positive freedoms guaranteed as a means to act, not to be acted upon. In the second cases, FDR defines freedom from in terms of abstractions. I find this to be particularly important in terms of the modern age of war on the abstract concept of terror. He does not define the freedom related to abstractions as being free to be anything, but the freedom from being affected by particular concepts or abstractions. The reason, to me, is because an abstraction is just that: abstract. Artificial. The product of the human mind, and if the mind and body are freed of them, they no longer exist.
Here FDR also lays out what is vital for the endurance of democracy:
As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fighting for.
The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.
For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic
systems are simple. They are: Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
Note that in addition to speaking of abstractions such as preservation of civil liberty and security for those who need it, he provides concrete requirements such as equality of opportunity and jobs for those who can work, and the ending of special privilege for the few. It is this linking of the abstract concept of liberty and freedom with concrete action, in a real world sense that I think is lacking in too many democratic politicians of the present. They advocate what for political democracy is the equivalent of the theological concept of cheap grace: democracy can be a matter of a few seconds' involvement without much further consequence.
It is a matter of sound-bites instead of substantive policy. The problem is that democracy, to endure, *does* need involvement. It does not need conscious attempts to deny the necessity of voting and the franchise to those who must exercise them. Democracy must also accept that people in a democracy may well democratically vote for policies its most vocal proponents disagree with. This is the nature of the beast, the only true changes in it can and will and must come from the involvement of the many to push our particular policies. It is very easy to create and to blame conspiracies on all sides, and to attribute to political leadership greater deftness and skill than they actually possess. But if people in democracy vote in great numbers for something you don't like, the answer and remedy is a very bluntly simple one: get active and organize people for the policies you want and vote the bums out that you disagree with. Not doing this and attributing it to the great cabal is ultimately a feel-good exercise that does nothing to solve the actual issue. Whether or not people want to hear this is irrelevant. The truth is seldom what anyone wishes to hear, and those who lecture others with it often tend to have our own mistakes that we seldom, if ever, like to admit. Whether or not we like to admit them, however, does not mean that those who lecture others should be unaware that they, too, would be on the receiving end and not just the giving. For the other essential part of working for democracy must be the honest, humble admission of mistakes, and not only when caught red-handed in them. The spirit of the pure crusade is incompatible in the long term with the survival of democracy.