Well, has been pretty dead for awhile, but after this post, that seems to be changing. People get riled up over the stupidest things. Still some good quick comebacks in there.
3 thoughts on “Rousing controversy”
I need to find who originated the “If you’re not a liberal at 20” quote.
I think it was someone famous.
Okay, the web tells me its often (falsely) attributed to W Churchill.
I’ve heard it attributed to a French, conservative, ex-communist politician.
Turns out all those attributions were wrong.
It was a French guy who said it, though.
Apparently, when he said “Republican” he was speaking of the French Republic, within living memory of the French Revolution. Which makes it make far more sense that the words for “liberal” and “conservative” have changed every time this is quoted.
From: jr3000@aol.com (JR3000)
Newsgroups: alt.quotations
Subject: Re: Political Quote
Date: 8 Jun 1996 20:26:07 -0400
In <31B91B31.48D9@connix.com>
"Douglas A. Wesney" writes:
>Friends-
>
>Don't know the source, but made me giggle...
>
>"If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart.
>If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain."
>
>Not really looking for source, just posting for others' enjoyment....
This is an updated variation of an apparently ever-relevant opinion,
first quoted by Guisot, a French monarchist statesman under Louis
Philippe:
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot (1787-1874)
which was later changed by Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) into:
Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
What is a socialist? One who has yearnings
To share equal profits from unequal earnings..
-Dean (William R.) Inge (1860-1954), 1925
Conservatism defends those coercive arrangements which a still-lingering
savageness makes requisite. Radicalism endeavours to realize a state more
in harmony with the character of the ideal man.
-Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), _Social Statistics_ (1850)
--
The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion are adversaries
are insane.
-Mark Twain, lecture _Christian Science
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Seek simplicity but distrust it.
--A N Whitehead
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Its amazing how our notions of “what defines conservative”, and the words we use to describe it, change over time.
Its wierd reading about 19th-century radicals who were inspired by their trips to the United States.
Honestly, though, this post would be far more interesting to send to graffiti.tobin, and let the libertarians loose on definitions of what is “liberalism”, and whether America has gotten more or less liberal since the time of the Revolution.
Yeah, it is very true that yesterday’s liberals are today’s conservatives. (Which especially makes sense if you consider that time does indeed pass! MLK Jr, considered very much to be a liberal in his time, would likely be considered a conservative today, if nothing else for his view of “family values” being paramount.) This shift in meaning is primarily the case in regard to issues of economy — and how it relates to freedom. Milton Friedman spends a good chapter in the beginning of his masterful Capitalism and Freedom whinging about how “liberal” was hijacked 🙂 Surely the Republicans in the USA today are the ones arguing for a more liberal economy! (And thusly, a more free and liberal (more liberties!) nation!)
Then you get into the issues regarding women and homosexuals, upon which the GOP often wishes to restrict liberties. It’s such a hodgepodge.
I need to find who originated the “If you’re not a liberal at 20” quote.
I think it was someone famous.
Okay, the web tells me its often (falsely) attributed to W Churchill.
I’ve heard it attributed to a French, conservative, ex-communist politician.
Turns out all those attributions were wrong.
It was a French guy who said it, though.
Apparently, when he said “Republican” he was speaking of the French Republic, within living memory of the French Revolution. Which makes it make far more sense that the words for “liberal” and “conservative” have changed every time this is quoted.
http://lalaland.cl.msu.edu/~vanhoose/quotes/0018.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWclemenceau.htm
Its amazing how our notions of “what defines conservative”, and the words we use to describe it, change over time.
Its wierd reading about 19th-century radicals who were inspired by their trips to the United States.
Honestly, though, this post would be far more interesting to send to graffiti.tobin, and let the libertarians loose on definitions of what is “liberalism”, and whether America has gotten more or less liberal since the time of the Revolution.
Yeah, it is very true that yesterday’s liberals are today’s conservatives. (Which especially makes sense if you consider that time does indeed pass! MLK Jr, considered very much to be a liberal in his time, would likely be considered a conservative today, if nothing else for his view of “family values” being paramount.) This shift in meaning is primarily the case in regard to issues of economy — and how it relates to freedom. Milton Friedman spends a good chapter in the beginning of his masterful Capitalism and Freedom whinging about how “liberal” was hijacked 🙂 Surely the Republicans in the USA today are the ones arguing for a more liberal economy! (And thusly, a more free and liberal (more liberties!) nation!)
Then you get into the issues regarding women and homosexuals, upon which the GOP often wishes to restrict liberties. It’s such a hodgepodge.