May 29 marks John F. Kennedy’s 90th birthday. Given his iconic status, we will hear his most famous line — “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,” more than a few times. But unfortunately, few will think carefully about it.
Kennedy’s speech dramatically changed the meaning from its inspiration — a Kahlil Gibran article, whose Arabic title translates as “The New Frontier.” It said “Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you, or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in the desert.”
Clearly, politicians who abuse their positions to benefit themselves and their friends are parasites. In America, where government is explicitly limited to few, enumerated powers, solely to advance the general welfare, such abuse is even more blatant. We can condemn them for asking what the country can do for them. But applying “ask what you can do for your country” to citizens instead of politicians turns America’s founding upside down. Advancing the general welfare means advancing the welfare of the individuals that comprise our country. But asking citizens to sacrifice for the country, especially when the government is misleadingly used as the proxy for America, implies we were made for the government’s benefit, rather than it for ours.
Kennedy’s famous line has also been employed to justify innumerable government policies that harm the country, by helping some at others’ expense. Every special interest policy is an example, because forcing the tab onto others sacrifices the broad interests of the country to those who secure political favor. The pork in every spending bill also reflects the polar opposite of advancing our general welfare. Similarly, protectionist measures help specific producers at far greater cost to American consumers. Wage mandates benefit a few, but harm those they squeeze out of jobs and those forced to pay higher prices. Innumerable other restrictions and mandates involve similar abuses.
Kennedy’s words were also focused on “what together we can do for the freedom of man.” But financing the unjustifiable policies that dominate politics sacrifices our freedoms to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” by forcing greater burdens on us.
Inspirational rhetoric can unite people toward a common goal. But, despite politicians’ rhetoric of unity, we do not share most specific goals, which are tuned to our different preferences, abilities and circumstances. That is why our federal government was explicitly limited to the few goals we actually share, such as defense against aggression and invasions of our common, inalienable rights. And we must remember that even a policy that unites the interests of millions of citizens, if its costs are forced onto others, does not advance our shared interests.
Kennedy’s rhetoric is only invoked on behalf of government initiatives, as well. But that ignores such programs’ history of consistent failure. In contrast, nothing is more inspiring than what individuals can do, pursuing their own advancement in liberty, through peaceful, voluntary cooperation that respects others’ equal rights. But a government continually interfering in such arrangements punishes rather than promotes them, paralyzing the greatest source of advancement we know.
Kennedy’s words best describe America’s founders. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend our liberty, so Americans could govern themselves over as broad a canvas of freedom as possible. But using those words to take from some, without their consent, to give to others, abandons our founders’ vision. Until we recognize that distortion, we might actually find more useful inspiration from Richard Nixon, when he said: “In our own lives, let each of us ask not what government will do for me, but what can I do for myself.”
{ 8 comments }
Penn & Teller recently did a nice (well, maybe “nice” isn’t the word) show on Patriotism and Kennedy’s “marxist” quote came up.
It’s split into 3 segments and starts with Mount Rushmore, there are a few f-bombs seeded throughout for flavor:
1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik49OgiH55E
2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYTizsjbKw
3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVnB8LS2CoA
The pair point out the biggest flaws of blind loyalty and nationalist fervor.
my favorite soldier was the guy from that Kubrick movie. the one that’s like 3 hours long. I can’t remeber the name. It’s like one guys name. Whoever he was, he knew the score!
Dear Gary,
At one time I heard a rumor that David Letterman was relatively libertarian in his political views but when he does the ‘Presidential Speeches’ segment to make fun of the current President’s misspoken words he begins with a segment from Kennedy and one from Franklin Roosevelt. Repeatedly showing these seems to be a disservice because it portrays them as great orators and leaders. Was the rumor false or is the system too strong for him to show Kennedy and Roosevelt in the proper light?
Those Penn and Teller videos are very left leaning… I really dislike how one can spin truth and turn them into socialist propaganda… Patriotism and Nationalism are completely different points. Read Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for sure!
The people on the street survey idea is foolish, since it is guarenteed that if you go to anywhere in the world, the people there are ignorant and will assume their state is the best in the world. It’s just how the common folk act.
Penn and Teller are pretty hardcore libertarians, Chris. The piece about Engels was not intended as any sort of endorsement of him, but rather as reproach for lock-step patriotism that ended up resembling his revolutionary blueprint.
Didn’t read the whole article, but I’ve never been bothered by that JFK quote because I’ve always figured that promoting free markets & being entrepreneurial is what I can do for my country.
Does doing something for one’s country mean getting a government job? Or does it mean things like owning a firearm & knowing how to use it?
John Kennedy’s whole political career testifies to the desirability of the Anglo-American banking-intelligence establishment failing to kill Joseph Kennedy junior, the anti-new deal isolationist just like their father, who SHOULD have been elected president in 1956 in time to validate much that is important to individualists so we could be spared all this retrospective folderol re John Kennedy on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of his birth; Ayn Rand took his actual measure in 1962 & concluded accurately: fascism. A high school drop out stocking shelves at a dis-count store does more for his country tacitly & implicitly than all non-Ron Paul type politicians do purposely & explicitly–unless I am uninformed & a state legislative committee on un-American activity has been restored some where!
I disagree with that last quote from Nixon being better (besides the fact that Nixon seems to be more anti-communist than libertarian). I’ve just seen the JFK movie that Murray Rothbard commented on (for that reason precisely).
Even though Oliver Stone is perhaps not strictly speaking a libertarian either, he makes the quote sound quite right in Garisson’s mouth… as in “ask what you can do for your country: fight latent fascism in your government”. Accordingly, Kennedy had been killed because he was too much isolationist, and too keen to curb the American war machine. Not that I think you shouldn’t work for yourself… but the main point is to know if libertarian thinking is socially viable. Is it an ideal that everyone can share, or just a personal philosophy of life? For his country, a libertarian should spread the word I believe … not just worry about his buy-low-sell-high activities.
Comments on this entry are closed.