The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Milton Friedman on JFK's Inaugural Speech

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Milton Friedman on JFK's Inaugural Speech

By Philip Klein on 1.20.11 @ 7:46AM

On the 50th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's innaugural address, I couldn't help but think of Milton Friedman's take on the speech's most famous line, which served as the opening of Friedman's 1962 classic Capitalism and Freedom:

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?

View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

dlraymer| 1.20.11 @ 8:06AM

To stop an evil, one must recognize, acknowledge, and standup to the evil. Or, as is oft attributed to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."

The Sheople of these United States have done nothing, and the Monster runs amok. Its time for pitchforks and torches. Run the progressives and liberals on either side of the aisle, out of town.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.20.11 @ 9:05AM

Mr. Klein, thanks - I'm still not comfortable with Friedman's view.

Better - "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself." Healthy self-interest is a quantum leap beyond petty selfishness (wherein we demand from others) into adult self-reliance and personal achievement. Governing one's self from within precludes "government" from without.

Cheers.

JimH| 1.20.11 @ 9:40AM

At face value 'what can you do for your country' is rather Statist and Fascistic, however I think most Americans look at it as a somewhat sloppy short hand for Friedman's phrase 'What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? '

Granite Sentry| 1.20.11 @ 10:33AM

Can't agree with JimH that Americans have sense enough to read the phrase in a positive way. More likely the sloppiness he refers just smears the useful concept of serving the whole by serving yourself into the more statist idea of serving the whole first.

Tomato Cain| 1.20.11 @ 10:42AM

JFK's thinking wasn't flawed, Friedman was just a deeper thinker. About running the progressives out of town, healthy debate and opposition is good; I just wish it were in the form of new ideas to improve our free country and stop trying to change it to something like what's always failed in the past and more recently in eastern European countries.

Sam Kane| 1.20.11 @ 10:53AM

I think this is from the Federalist:
'Government AT BEST is a recalcitrant servant;
AT WORST it is a tyrannical master.'
(if anyone knows where it originated, let me know)

Irish22| 1.20.11 @ 11:14AM

The lid is off the GOP lie of conservatism. We have a foothold with the Tea Party, but human nature being what it is we must be constantly vigilant. We need to ask questions of our representatives and candidates that will de-camoflage the RINO's.

What would Friedman ask?

Adam| 1.20.11 @ 12:58PM

You can probably find that quote among the massive amount of historical information and quotes from our founders and information about our Constitution and founders at this site I reference constantly. Look under the "Library" tab.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

James| 4.17.11 @ 3:01AM

different versions of that particular statement date back as far as the Roman Empire, and the Prussian Empire. I do not think anyone really knows where it originated.

Handy| 1.20.11 @ 12:10PM

Among such legal luminaries as even Robert Bork, the Preamble to the Constitution is merely hortatory language. But, they could not be more wrong.

"We the People of the United States.......do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You see, it was the People who created the government and not the other way around; and the People did so..." to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote the general Welfare, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

When our government has failed in every one of these stated reasons for its existence (even defense), and has become so arrogant as to ask " What you can do for your country," it is way past time to refer back to the Declaration of Independence.

"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Our National Government is even more despotic than George III ever was, and has been for quite some time. When will we develop, or regain the courage of the Founders to demand that the government abolish the tools of tyranny that have evinced a design to reduce us all?

Milton Friedman is all well and good, but he was no Friedrich Hayak. A short but pithy book about this subject is "The Road to Serfdom" by the latter.

And, for an even better update on the parallels bewtween Naziism and our country, I recommend Ayn Rand's essay "The Fascist New Frontier." In it she quotes a 1933 speech by Hitler that JFK basically plagiarized with his "Ask not" inaugural address. You can listen to it here.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa.....r_frontier

James| 4.17.11 @ 2:40AM

A government becomes useless when it starts working for itself rather than the people that created it.

Nick| 1.20.11 @ 12:26PM

It should be noted that President Kennedy's famous innaugural line, "Ask not [...]" was not original, in the least.

It was just a rearranging of a phrase used in several other speeches, going back to Grover Cleveland.

AJBopp| 1.20.11 @ 1:08PM

It takes a special sort of mental shutdown to infer "government" was meant by the usage of "country" in Kennedy's address. I'm not certain whether to be comforted or dispirited that the current wave of political irrationality extends so far back in the collective consciousness of our populace.

Handy| 1.20.11 @ 2:51PM

Perhaps we should replace "country" with "collective?"

Ask not what the collective can do for you, rather ask what you can do for the collective.

Same thing, really: An abrogation of government responsibility and no recognition of individual rights. From each according to his ability, to each, according to his needs.

And what, by the way, is a "collective conscious?"

Mar| 1.21.11 @ 2:55PM

Perhaps we can "ask not what others can do for you; rather ask what you can do for others."
If we make it a point not to ask others to do for us what we can do for ourselves, we lessen our obligations and increase our competence.

James| 4.17.11 @ 2:35AM

I both agree and disagree, I agree that the system is paternal in nature, but the Country ( being each and everyone of us) as the parent. The government is a product of the country not the other way around. We tell them what we want and they do it, and everyone of us on some level do thing about the prospects and goals of the nation that is why we elect OUR GOVERNMENT (notice emphasis on our government) officials. Remember a government of the people, by the people, for the people. a product of the country. Kennedy just had it backwards.