Splendiferous Oratory May Not Be Enough To Rule The Day
I left off questioning the logic behind Virginia Senator Tim Kaine’s opinion that our rights come not from our creator-God-as specified in a document he is familiar with called the Constitution-but rather from government. Which exposes his opinion as at best disingenuous and at worst crass ignorance of the political kind.
I also worked through some frankly anti-American terrorist groups-such as ANTIFA and the Black Liberation Revival Movement-as defined by propagating violence in pursuit of political ends. And introduced the premise that the concept of what is required and meant by the historic definition of being a citizen in a constitutional republic was defined very well by former President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt’s speech entitled “Citizenship in a Republic” delivered to the Sorbonne in Paris on April 23, 1910.
Many-including Roosevelt therein-often refer to America-the United States of America (USA)-as some variation of a democratic republic. The great French diplomat, political philosopher and historian Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville was fond of our constitutional republic and couched many of his comments in terms of our democracy.
Many who should know better -such as our elected officials-prefer to use the term “democracy” to describe our union. Which is a fair enough convention in general unless taken to the extremes we have seen promoted for decades now that confuse the objective of fairness and having an equal chance-opportunity-to excel, with some type of guarantee.
Whereas it is in fact a concept designed-all things being equal-to guarantee the opportunity-but not the outcome. The very idea is a bedrock of our system. Tocqueville wrote extensively of the virtues of the enhanced equality of man under a democracy as much improved over the legacy structure of a constitutional monarchy.
With representative electors doing our bidding in congress within the framework provided by the constitution, adding the term democracy to the mix makes for somewhat of a tortuous construct of reality. One of the key principles applicable to such logic being the feature of the Electoral College as the centerpiece of the genius balance designed to preserve states’ rights in the selection of our presiding executive.
It is a feature, not a flaw. Many leftist pundits and democrats disagree. To do so is much like Kaine’s argument above: disingenuous or true ignorance.
Roosevelt’s speech is very well known in terms of “The Man in the Arena” extract that has inspired many Americans to present. That most memorable part was a very small portion of his speech, while the remainder was seemingly much less appreciated over the years in light of his engaging in a battle that ultimately cost his party the presidency.
It was presented in early 2oth century vernacular/prose some 123 years after Franklin’s comment, and many have only seen small snippets of this splendiferous oratory effort in its shortened context mentioned above.
The speech in its entirety could be delivered today to great effect, particularly when Roosevelt dwells in detail upon the responsibilities that fall to citizens of what he refers to as a democratic republic, while making clear that he fully embraces the charter that guides man’s actions-but moreso their responsibilities-in a constitutional republic.
Roosevelt “got it” and detailed “it” in this famous speech of some 115 years ago in plain talk that warrants revisiting today as our society reflects-and suffers-the logical outcome of foolhardy policy that he warns against.
I began to gift extracts of this famous speech over the years as my fellow travelers battled (in government bureaucratic sense) against many of the problems Roosevelt details herein as contrasted with desired citizenship traits. In doing so I discovered that many recipients had no familiarity with the underlying theme that makes the speech so timely and instructive to this day. Namely the strong contrast of the needed and somewhat idyllic citizen as compared with the “poser or cheap imitation,” particularly in terms of leadership.
This example (from the above piece) goes a long way to introducing what Roosevelt was talking about: Today I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we are great citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as ours—an effort to realize in its full sense government by, of, and for the people—represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success of republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure the despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or very few men, the quality of the leaders is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nations for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of the average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness. But with you and us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher
This portion also:
In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that they ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other. He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and he also must have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good. He is useless if he is inefficient. There is nothing to be done with that type of citizen of whom all that can be said is that he is harmless. Virtue which is dependent upon a sluggish circulation is not impressive. There is little place in active life for the timid good man. The man who is saved by weakness from robust wickedness is likewise rendered immune from robuster virtues. The good citizen in a republic must first of all be able to hold his own. He is no good citizen unless he has the ability which will make him work hard and which at need will make him fight hard. The good citizen is not a good citizen unless he is an efficient citizen.
But if a man’s efficiency is not guided and regulated by a moral sense, then the more efficient he is the worse he is, the more dangerous to the body politic. Courage, intellect, all the masterful qualities, serve but to make a man more evil if they are merely used for that man’s own advancement, with brutal indifference to the rights of others. It speaks ill for the community if the community worships those qualities and treats their possessors as heroes regardless of whether the qualities are used rightly or wrongly. It makes no difference as to the precise way in which this sinister efficiency is shown. It makes no difference whether such a man’s force and ability betray themselves in a career of money-maker or politician, soldier or orator, journalist or popular leader. If the man works for evil, then the more successful he is the more he should be despised and condemned by all upright and far-seeing men. To judge a man merely by success is an abhorrent wrong; and if the people at large habitually so judge men, if they grow to condone wickedness because the wicked man triumphs, they show their inability to understand that in the last analysis free institutions rest upon the character of citizenship, and that by such admiration of evil they prove themselves unfit for liberty.
One might think these words dated and obsolete given modern-day communications, 21st century societal values and a host of thoughts and ideas that render scant homage to what many dismiss as quaint, obsolescent, antiquated sentiment. Many have made the same or similar observations over the past several thousand years in assessing the stability of great nations of the past that only exist in history books today.
One more extract regarding journalists:
Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator’s latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He can do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that the demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations.
The speech is a good read, well worth the time.
If past is indeed prologue, society ignores and dismisses such statements with careless disregard of historical precedent.
Context is important in these matters and we do well to remember that Roosevelt made these remarks during a somewhat tumultuous time-from his viewpoint-where his duly anointed successor-President William Howard Taft-began to show an independent streak and propensity to undermine and undo many of Roosevelts pet progressive accomplishments. Which included aggressive regulation of big business, consumer protections, labor mediation, and conservatism (in the context of protection of federal lands, wildlife and watercourses.)
Taft’s more conservative approach (from the standpoint of a more laissez faire or government hands off policy in many matters) led to a deepening rift between the two men that culminated post 1910-1912 in actions that would cost the party the presidency when Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate that split the vote and resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson with only 41.8% of the vote.
Roosevelt (27.4) and Taft (23.8%) managed to garner over 50% of the vote, but their inability to resolve their differences in the wake of the ill-considered effort by Roosevelt cost their party the presidency.
This would not be the last time that a party self-immolated when the powers that be made basic, fundamental, political errors confusing pragmatic values and righteous behavior with political realities and pure mathematics, as evidenced by Bush vs Clinton vs Perot.
The bottom-line truth is that often the compromise necessary to produce desired results such as the agreed upon constitutional framework is beyond the egos of the personalities involved in the effort who prefer to dash on the rocks: or to close the government in the name of politics.
It is doubtful that such an agreement as the constitution could be reached in the modern political environment in which the caveats, clauses and sentiment for inclusivity would make the explanatory notes much longer than the document itself.
Some would opine that society is too sophisticated today to compromise: or too spoiled and selfish, with more ego than common sense…
With too many willing to cut off their nose (or other body parts) to spite their face.
I will close with two thoughts that are emblematic of the current state of political affairs. One is by Senator John Fetterman (Pa) providing plain speak on the hyperbolic and dangerous labels being tossed around by democrats about their supposed enemies where he states “this is where we lost the plot” referring to Harris and her campaign references to Trump and his supporters in terms of Hitler and Nazis.
She was not the first and she isn’t the last.
The second is where the House Democratic Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, acknowledged in a recent interview that the ongoing shutdown is a necessary bargaining tactic despite it bringing hardship to Americans. From the Newsmax article:
“Of course there will be families that are going to suffer,” Clark said. “But it is one of the few leverage times we have.”
Max translator: we shut the government down knowing families would suffer because it was the only political leverage we have to force the republicans to spend more of your tax dollars on crap. So we are using our constituents as pawns in a battle to waste more of your tax dollars on illegals and disastrous, never-ending subsidies on the Unaffordable Care Act/Obamacare: you’re welcome!
Nuff said!
Max Dribbler
25 October 2025
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: AmericanFreeNewsNetworkSubstack
TruthSocial:@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
2 thoughts on “A Republic If You Can Keep It: The Grand Compromise Part 3”