The danger in our system is that the general government, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the states, which represent the peculiar and local interests, or that the latter may encroach on the former.
John C. CalhounRead
Democracy, as I understand it, requires me to sacrifice myself for the masses, not to them. Who knows not that if you would save the people, you must often oppose them?
Interpretation
This quote suggests that true democracy involves selflessness for the collective good, even if it means opposing popular opinion.
John C. Calhoun's quote reflects the complexity of democracy, emphasizing that for a society to thrive, individuals may need to prioritize the greater good over personal or popular desires. He argues that genuine leadership often requires the courage to challenge the masses in order to enact necessary changes that ultimately serve the populace better, hinting at the conflict between public opinion and moral duty.
In practice
In a political speech discussing the responsibilities of elected officials.
The danger in our system is that the general government, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the states, which represent the peculiar and local interests, or that the latter may encroach on the former.
There is a tendency in all parties, when they have been for a long time in possession of power, to augment it.
I hold that there is a mysterious connection between the fate of this country and that of Mexico; so much so that her independence and capability of sustaining herself are almost as essential to our prosperity and the maintenance of our institutions as they are to hers.
The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States ... formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities.
There is not an example on record of any free state holding a province of the same extent and population without disastrous consequences. The nations conquered and held as a province have, in time, retaliated by destroying the liberty of their conquerors through the corrupting effect of extended patronage and irresponsible power.
Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.
Truth, for any man, is that which makes him a man.
And when there are enough outsiders together in one place, a mystic osmosis takes place and you're inside.
Customs tell a man who he is, where he belongs, what he must do. Better illogical customs than none; men cannot live together without them.
Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law, limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which the Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple, difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic.
Why did people ask "What is it about?" as if a novel had to be about only one thing.
Of course all such conclusions about appropriate actions against the rich and powerful are based on a fundamental flaw: This is us, and that is them. This crucial principle, deeply embedded in Western culture, suffices to undermine even the most precise analogy and the most impeccable reasoning.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.