Monday, June 20, 2016

What do Hillary Clinton and Theodore Roosevelt have in common? Hypocrisy, critics, and criticism

After spending years trying to silence people in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", Hillary Clinton shrieked this little number:
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Yes, unfortunately, I had to listen to it. I provided the link, but for the sake of your health you might not want to click and listen to the YouTube clip. Now, onto Dear Leader Teddy's hypocrisy. And you know, this is something you always see with progressives. They just can't help themselves. Because they worship at the altar of big government, it's ok for them to lie to whomever they need to lie to. As long as the agenda moves forward.

On April 23rd, 1910, Roosevelt said:

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; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in 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 fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Now, why did Roosevelt say these things? Well, he does give clues. Such as his use of the phrase "strong man". TR was so "strong", he wasn't going to let any G.. D... Constitution stand in his way - and he didn't. He exercised his pen and his phone, whatever he had to do, to get around that pesky Constitution. He readily admitted as much in his own autobiography.(page 372)

I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.

So you see, wherever the Constitution stood in TR's way, he simply declined to adopt the view. That's all. That's not so bad, is it? That's why in his letter to George Trevelyan, TR grumbled about how people kept calling him a usurper. Because that's what he did. He usurped.

But what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton? The usual progressive claptrap, of course. If you show me a progressive, I'll show you a person who stands at the height of hypocrisy. Here is what Roosevelt had to say in 1894, at the founding of the National Civic League in Philadelphia:

Two points in especial bear in mind: be actors and not merely critics of others, in the first place, and in the second, do not try to accomplish anything at the very beginning, and then because you fail abandon the effort to accomplish anything.

As to the first point criticism is a very good thing, but work is a much better one. It is not the man who sits at home in his parlor, the man who reads his evening paper before the fire and says how bad our politicians are, who ever works an improvement in our municipal government. It is the man who goes out to the primaries and the polls, who attends the meetings of his party organizations, (etc)

At first glance, this does not seem contradictory. Until you realize, that when TR was elected and he started using the Constitution like toilet paper, that suddenly there weren't any critics worth a penny that he could find. In 1894? Criticism is a good thing. Here, TR is sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and he stood up to say, that we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration...... But in 1910? It must be that vast right wing conspiracy and we need to silence those guys.

You see, they're just a bunch of critics after all. And critics don't count. They can be silenced. They're just RIGHT WINGERS anyways, clinging to their Constitutions and their Bibles, and antipathy toward others. It's the "strong man" who counts. TR explicitly separated critics from work. Yes, work is better, but criticism, originally that was still a good thing. Was. My, what a difference an election makes.

I guess to TR, the only critic who ever counted was TR himself.

The hypocrisy of progressives. I just can't take it. You can always tell a progressive is lying - is their mouth moving? Yes. There you go. They're lying. If their lips have motion, some devious plot is afoot. Hey, and let's not forget that Hillary keeps going out there and saying that she is just like those progressives from the early 20th century. She must mean Theodore Roosevelt.

After all, she doesn't like the Constitution any more than he did.

No comments:

Post a Comment