“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
Explore This Quote Further
-
Working on it...
Quote Analysis of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt's statement highlights a fundamental concern about the balance of power in a democratic society. He warns against the dangers of unchecked private power that can overshadow and undermine the democratic state. This analysis will delve into the implications of his words and the broader themes of democracy and fascism.
Roosevelt's assertion begins with the concept of liberty in a democracy. He emphasizes that this liberty is contingent upon the vigilance of the populace. If citizens become passive and allow private entities to accumulate power, they risk the security of their democratic freedoms.
The phrase "tolerated the growth of private power" suggests a gradual acceptance that can lead to significant consequences. It implies that democracy requires active participation from its citizens, who must be aware of and resist the encroachment of powerful private interests that seek to influence or control government functions.
When Roosevelt refers to the potential of private power "becomes stronger than the democratic state itself," he encapsulates a critical danger: a situation where corporations, wealthy individuals, or other organized interests hold more sway than elected officials and democratic institutions. This imbalance not only threatens the integrity of governance but also endangers the very ideals upon which democracy is built.
Roosevelt goes further to define this scenario as "fascism." By equating the dominance of private interests over democratic governance with fascism, he underscores the notion that despotism can emerge not only from authoritarian regimes but also from the disproportionate influence of private entities in a supposedly democratic system. This comparison serves as a stark warning about complacency and the necessity of protecting democratic values against all forms of tyranny.
In conclusion, Roosevelt's statement serves as a profound reminder of the intricate relationship between democracy and power. It challenges individuals to remain vigilant and engaged in political processes to safeguard their liberties against the perils of concentrated private influence. The implications of his words resonate deeply in contemporary discussions about corporate influence in politics, the role of money in elections, and the ongoing struggle for a more equitable and just society.
Modern Relevance of Roosevelt's Warning on Private Power
Franklin D. Roosevelt's cautionary statement regarding the interplay between democracy and private power resonates profoundly in today's political landscape. As citizens increasingly witness the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on policymaking, the essence of his warning becomes more pertinent.
The rise of super PACs, lobbying groups, and corporate donations shapes elections and legislative agendas, often overshadowing the voices of ordinary citizens. This dynamic poses significant challenges to the democratic process, creating a scenario where private interests may outweigh the common good.
Furthermore, as social media platforms and tech giants exert control over information flow, the concept of fascism, as defined by FDR—ownership of government by powerful private entities—becomes a reality that demands urgent attention. The vigilance he urged is crucial now more than ever, as societies strive to protect democratic ideals in the face of growing private influence.
The Essence of Democracy and the Dangers of Private Power
The quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt highlights the critical balance between democracy and private power. Here are some practical examples illustrating the implications of this statement:
Corporate Lobbying
Large corporations often exert influence on legislation through lobbying. If companies gain enough power to sway government decisions to their advantage, it can undermine democracy. For instance, when a handful of corporations can dictate terms on crucial policies, it echoes the risk of fascism where private interests eclipse public welfare.Media Ownership
When a few private entities control major media outlets, they can shape public perception and manipulate information. This consolidation can lead to biased reporting and propaganda, effectively aligning the media's voice with elite interests rather than the democratic process. Such a scenario raises concerns about whether the public can make well-informed decisions in a genuinely democratic society.Financial Influence in Politics
The rise of Super PACs and dark money in politics illustrates the growing power of private wealth. When individuals or groups can significantly fund political campaigns, the integrity of democratic elections is threatened. Politicians may prioritize the interests of their largest donors over constituents, further weakening the democratic state.Privatization of Public Services
The shift from public to private management of essential services (like healthcare or education) can lead to a situation where profit motives override the public good. If private entities prioritize profits over the needs of citizens, it risks creating a power dynamic that resembles fascism, where private ownership unduly influences government action.Erosion of Labor Rights
When companies gain enough power, they may suppress labor rights and undermine democratic structures designed to protect workers. If employees cannot organize or have their voices heard in the workplace, it sets a precedent where corporate power surpasses democratic rights, contributing to a climate of oppression that aligns with fascist principles.
These examples serve as a reminder of the importance of vigilance in protecting democratic institutions from the encroachment of concentrated private power.
Similar quotes
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”
“To the Congress:Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.Both lessons hit home.Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.”
“Good government should maintain the balance where every individual may have a place if he will take it, where every individual may find safety if he wishes it, where every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility.”
“From the end of the World War twenty-one years ago, this country, like many others, went through a phase of having large groups of people carried away by some emotion--some alluring, attractive, even speciously inspiring, public presentation of a nostrum, a cure-all. Many Americans lost their heads because several plausible fellows lost theirs in expounding schemes to end barbarity, to give weekly handouts to people, to give everybody a better job--or, more modestly, for example, to put a chicken or two in every pot--all by adoption of some new financial plan or some new social system. And all of them burst like bubbles.Some proponents of nostrums were honest and sincere, others--too many of them--were seekers of personal power; still others saw a chance to get rich on the dimes and quarters of the poorer people in our population. All of them, perhaps unconsciously, were capitalizing on the fact that the democratic form of Government works slowly. There always exists in a democratic society a large group which, quite naturally, champs at the bit over the slowness of democracy; and that is why it is right for us who believe in democracy to keep the democratic processes progressive--in other words, moving forward with the advances in civilization. That is why it is dangerous for democracy to stop moving forward because any period of stagnation increases the numbers of those who demand action and action now.”
“Let us be clear at the outset that the liberty of individuals to carry on their business should not be abrogated unless the larger interests of the many are concerned. It is the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved. These are the principals which must be remembered in any consideration of this question. This, I take it, is sound government-not politics.”
“All agree that, the first responsibility for the alleviation of poverty and distress and for the care of the victims of the depression rests upon the locality — its individuals, organizations and Government. It rests, first of all, perhaps, upon the private agencies of philanthropy, secondly, other social organizations, and last, but not least, the Church. Yet all agree that to leave to the locality the entire responsibility would result in placing the heaviest burden in most cases upon those who are the least able to bear it. In other words, the communities that have the most difficult problem, like Detroit, would be the communities that would have to bear the heaviest of the burdens. And so the State should step in to equalize the burden by providing for a large portion of the care of the victims of poverty and by providing assistance and guidance for local communities. Above and beyond that duty of the States the national Government has a responsibility.”