Become a member.Become a Ricochet member.
Looking for better conservative conversation? Join Ricochet for just $5/month. Think of it as your neighborhood bar: familiar faces, lively debate, and room for a different point of view. Plus: listen to most of our podcasts ad-free.












































Discussion (3)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Pace Mr. Hegseth, it is not possible to put aside TR's Fascist (aka Progressive) tendencies to admire his "Citizenship in a Republic" speech. We can admire it, but must reserve our full assent: the thing is suffused with a Fascist outlook.
Mr. Hegseth commends Roosevelt for going beyond the usual activities associated with citizenship—voting, jury duty, etc.— to include working to be economically independent, willingness to fight if necessary to defend society and what is right, raising a family, and developing a character informed by faith and civic, martial, and manly virtues.
But those are the qualities of a full and virtuous man. Citizenship is far narrower. It is one's relationship to and activities within the polity, which is the political aspect of society; the purpose of politics (per Aristotle) is good government; government is the management of the state; and the state is merely society's instrument for managing the use of coercive force.
Certainly, cultivating a virtuous populace is not unrelated to having good citizens. As John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." But Roosevelt goes beyond that. His catalogue of citizen virtues draws our approbation, but we cannot ignore that he subsumes the whole of the full man into the citizen, in effect subsuming the whole of society into the state.
That is Fascistic.