“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
Analysis
In this quote by Robert A. Heinlein, the author challenges the traditional political labels and instead divides humanity into two groups based on their desire for control over others. Heinlein suggests that political ideology is not the fundamental criterion for categorizing individuals, but rather their inclination towards controlling others. He portrays one group as idealistic individuals who believe in controlling people for the greater good, while the other group is depicted as suspicious and selfish individuals who have no desire to control others. Heinlein ultimately suggests that those who do not seek to control others may be more suitable neighbors, despite societal perceptions. This quote encourages readers to evaluate individuals based on their attitudes towards control rather than their political affiliations.
The Fluidity of Political Tags
In this quote by Robert A. Heinlein, the author challenges the conventional notion of political labels defining individuals. He posits that the true division lies in whether someone desires to control others or not. This concept remains relevant in modern society, where political labels are often used to categorize individuals, sometimes oversimplifying their beliefs and values. Heinlein's words remind us to look beyond these labels and consider the underlying motivations of individuals in our political landscape.
Quote Analysis
In this quote by Robert A. Heinlein, the author discusses different political ideologies and categorizes people into two groups based on their desires for control over others. Heinlein suggests that political labels such as royalist, communist, democrat, and fascist are not fundamental criteria, but rather, the division lies between those who seek to control others and those who do not.
Reflection Questions
Reflecting on this quote by Robert A. Heinlein, consider the following questions:
Do you agree with the idea that political divisions can be simplified into those who want to control others and those who do not? Why or why not?
How do you personally define your own political beliefs and where do you see yourself fitting into Heinlein's dichotomy of control versus non-control?
How do you think this quote relates to the concept of power and authority in society? Do you believe that some level of control is necessary for social order, or do you lean more towards individual freedom and autonomy?
In what ways do you think political labels and tags can influence our perceptions of others and our interactions with them? Do you think these labels are helpful or harmful in fostering understanding and cooperation among people with differing beliefs?
Reflecting on your own experiences, can you think of instances where you have encountered individuals who align more with the "control" or "non-control" mindset described by Heinlein? How have these interactions shaped your own beliefs and attitudes towards politics and society?
Similar quotes
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
“Humanity can be roughly divided into three sorts of people - those who find comfort in literature, those who find comfort in personal adornment, and those who find comfort in food;”
“There is a gulf fixed between those who can sleep and those who cannot. It is one of the greatest divisions of the human race.”
“We must distinguish between military and political power.Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of these.”
“Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters.But I don't think so. They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way-in their own lives, at least- to make peace with their neighbors, and themselves....I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting. They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”