Man in the Arena

[USMCRET6391]

Bruce Fleming | August 22, 2006

A favorite text of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy -- it's printed in their “must-know” book, Reef Points, memorized by all plebes, freshmen -- is a speech of Theodore Roosevelt usually called “Man in the Arena.” It's inspiring stuff, but subject to misinterpretation that leads to bad things. At first glance, the point of view it seems to defend encourages people (mostly men?) to break things first and ask questions later. That's bad. Almost as bad is that it tends to make them whiney when things don't turn out the way they'd hoped. We've seen the deficiencies of this point of view in reactions to the recent rape trial of the Navy quarterback, and in reactions of the Bush Administration to criticism of the Iraq war (by an increasing wave of conservative commentators, including George Will).

Here's the good stuff from this speech (whose real title is the considerably less inspiring “Citizenship in a Republic”). It bears repeating, because it's totally OOH-RAH (a variant on YUT), and it's difficult at first to see anything wrong with it.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

I love the “cold and timid souls.” Who can fail to have a big grin for Teddy, outdoorsman, naturalist, and Rough Rider -- not to mention really good writer. All our childhood bears are named after him, after all. I say YUT.

At best this means: When you've decided as the result of rational consideration that coming on strong is the best thing to do, then come on strong. It's widely misread, however, as justifying the error of thinking that we should charge in some direction all the time, that action is its own justification. People who object can't have a better course of action in mind. Instead they're just “cold and timid souls.” Dismiss them: by definition the man sweating and bleeding is right.

People in the military generally like this speech, and subscribe to what it seems to be saying even if they've never read it. On one hand, I say thank goodness: we need a hard-charging military. For that matter, men in general typically ascribe to this viewpoint. We're the ones who go places where others don't to go, we're the ones who take on the intruders, and we're the ones who fix the things that nobody else wants to fix. This attitude finds its most pure expression, I think, in the ethos of the Marine Corps. As they say, “First in, last out.” The message is this: We do what you don't want to do.

That's the view I can subscribe to. Sure, once you've justified the position that maximum force is where you want to go, you call the people capable of applying it. But the logical error is to always apply maximum force under all circumstances -- to always charge ahead even if you have to reverse yourself after a while, and charge equally hard in the opposite direction. And to ridicule opponents -- they're not the man in the arena. That's you, and so by definition the one who's right.

What this implies is false: That the only possible alternative to the action you are in fact taking is just criticizing from the sidelines. It ignores the possibility that another action, or even the action of deciding not to act right here right now, would have been the better course of action. It says that if you don't like what I'm doing, you have to be one of those “cold and timid souls.” Just shut up and let me do what I'm doing. Get out of my way.

This attitude -- what I'm doing is the only possible thing to do (it isn't always so) -- not only leads to disaster, it makes the do-ers of the world whiney when things go wrong. Who knew? Well, lots of people, actually, if they'd only stopped charging ahead long enough to listen.

This whininess is the tone of the Bush White House's reaction to criticisms of its Iraq policy, which all -- except a shrinking minority of staunch defenders -- are calling (in the title word of Thomas Ricks's recent book on Iraq) a “fiasco.” Recently the conservative columnist George Will, who had until recently supported the war in print, took aim at the Administration's determination to unsettle the stability of the region. In his words, the Administration saw “stability as the problem.” As Will goes on to comment acerbically, “that problem has been solved.”

The response was a lengthy whine from Washington, very much following the faulty logic I've targeted above. The White House issued a disagreement three times as long as the original op-ed piece that asserted that Will was peddling “a kind of world-weary belief that nothing can be done and so nothing should be tried.” In other words, it's my way or the highway. The only alternative to action is being one of Teddy's dreaded “critics.”

But that's not so. Deciding not to intervene is also an action. It's like the way submarines are charged with making sure incidents don't happen -- deterrence is strategy too. Charging here and charging there at every provocation is something only callow puppy dogs do. Mature dogs pick their battles. Willingness to try is good; insistence that you have to try, and try this, merely because we're the men in the arena and want to act is faulty logic.

Similarly, I got many male respondents to my recent piece about how testosterone has to be channeled whining (so it seemed to me) about how women shouldn't be at the Academy in the first place, or even in the fighting military. You know what? That's reality. Of course it creates problems that wouldn't be there at all. I say acknowledge the way things are and address the problems rather than trying to pretend they don't exist.

It's the same whining we get by men accused of rape who give such non-excuses as “she was wearing a short skirt -- what did she expect?” The fact is women wear short skirts for many reasons, not all of which include attracting men (frequently women dress up for girlfriends, or just to “feel nice”) -- certainly not all men. It need not mean you, buddy. Yes it's complex, but you know what? You still have to live with it. Don't whine about how reality doesn't correspond with your willingness to take charge in the arena.

The trick to life is to acknowledge the complexity without losing the willingness to get in the arena. Whether the subject is the relation between the sexes or foreign engagement, this usually means: Don't think that being hard-charging means the best thing to do is always to charge -- to come on forcefully to a woman, or to invade another country. You don't get any moral superiority by being a “man of action.” Any fool can act. The trick is to adopt the best action under the circumstances. To figure out what that might be, you have to put off being a “man of action” long enough to consider the arguments pro and con. Yes, she's wearing a short skirt. What makes you think it's for you? Even if it is, consider the possibility that the best thing to do would be to say, “You look nice,” not jump her then and there.

[Brad]

I think he got Roosevelt wrong. Even in the quote, TR isn't saying, "My way or no way." He acknowledges that the doers make mistakes - sometimes over and over again. But still doing something is better than endless talking, philosophizing, thinking, waiting.

As far as the charge of "whining" - I have yet to hear another solution being offered by the major critics of the war in Iraq. The only other option consistently being presented is to do nothing.

There are, however, two different kinds of critics. There are some, probably the majority on this board for example, who think that the problem in Iraq is not enough will, not enough seriousness, and too much wishful thinking on the part of the administration. These critics usually have something in mind to do that would bring the war to a swifter, better conclusion.

Others are TR's sideline critics. They won't lift a finger to act. They won't dare offer an idea that might actually be tested. They provide no help or alternatives. Just criticism.

This guy might have a few decent points somewhere in this article, but his analysis of Theodore Roosevelt misses the mark.