by Pete Hegseth
Good citizens should also have contempt for systems that don’t afford workers the ability to work, earn, and achieve to their utmost potential. To this point, Roosevelt—who always battled the “moneyed interests” and was a populist champion of the little guy—is clear in the speech, saying, “The deadening effect on any race of the adoption of a logical and extreme socialistic system could not be overstated; it would spell sheer destruction; it would produce grosser wrong and outrage, fouler immortality, than any existing system.”
Socialism and other forms of collectivism purport to support “workers” through greater government control of the economy and steeper forms of wealth redistribution, but the opposite plays out every time such a system is attempted. Socialism inherently restricts the competitive engine of any economy, creating less opportunity, and less wealth, for the entire society. Socialism shrinks the economic pie, puts a ceiling on earned success, and diminishes citizens. Only capitalism unleashes the potential of individuals, families, and companies to innovate, compete, and earn in ways that benefit themselves and the entire economy. Free-market capitalism, while never perfect, is by far the most moral, fair, and prosperous form of economic organization the world has ever seen. It seems like a simple point, but too many average citizens in America today are utterly unprepared to defend capitalism in the face of a seductive socialist onslaught.
FIGHT
Speaking of onslaughts, Teddy Roosevelt’s second ingredient for citizenship is “the ability to fight at need.” He says further, “the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises.” This point is made in two parts (physical and will) and on two levels (war and ideas). First, there is a very physical aspect to what Roosevelt describes. He believes the good citizen must possess the physical ability to fight when necessary—to be “strong,” “brave,” and physically fit—but always keeping in mind that “physical development is a means and not an end.” Teddy Roosevelt was always a burly man, certainly not trim by modern standards, but he believed in a “strenuous life” that kept him prepared for life’s eventualities—which, even in a white-collar world, could be physical. Good citizens need not be soldiers, but if necessary, they must be both able and willing to fight. Who knew the perpetuation of citizenship could be a motivation for hitting up CrossFit and buying your first firearm?
That is, however, the less important part of Roosevelt’s fighting citizen; more important is the sheer will to fight. A cowardly bodybuilder is of no use in a fight, but even the most modest man or woman, given the will, courage, and ability to fight, is an asset. At this point in the speech, Roosevelt is subtly addressing his elite French audience, with words that ring equally true today:
There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be “Yes,” whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.
A long quote, but a simple truth. War is bad, but injustice is worse. The question is not “war or no war”; the question is, if war is necessary—or thrust upon us—do we have the ability not just to fight, but also to fight to win, “whatever the cost” (a concept I explore later in this book)? Ask yourself, Do I have that ability? The willingness to physically fight for those things we hold dear—our freedom, our faith, our family—is what separates righteous people and civil society from those who eventually “submit to wrong” and become slaves, subjects, or serfs. The citizen who loves freedom so much he will fight for it is what ultimately keeps a republic free. This ethos is what sent volunteers to a green in Lexington and a bridge in Concord, to a field in Pennsylvania, to a hill in Cuba, to islands in the Pacific, and to the sands of Baghdad. It also sent draftees to Vietnam, men and women who bravely fought an honorable and hard-fought war against communists—while America spat on them.
The ability to fight in the arena belongs not only to the battlefield, but also the public square and the war of ideas. Cultivating this fighting spirit for both arenas, however, does not happen by accident and in making this point Roosevelt uses the phrase “a strong and virile people.” The word virile means having or showing masculine spirit, strength, vigor, or power. It means manliness—a manliness that America is quickly losing among both our young men and women. From fifth-place trophies to ubiquitous bike helmets and safety equipment to obsessive antibullying efforts to helicopter parents and their hand sanitizers to gender neutrality, we are raising a society of entitled, coddled, sheltered, feeble, and emasculated future citizens. In today’s safe, fair, and politically correct culture, we teach our men to be more like women, and our women to be more like men. The result is youth who enjoy their freedoms—and their own socially constructed sense of self—but have developed little constructive ability to fight for them. They believe their fifth-place trophy is special, and will wear bike helmets as dainty adults and shun the “violence” of tackle football (a sport Teddy Roosevelt literally saved from abolition during his presidency); they obsess over every “microaggression” and micromanage their kids, and refuse to acknowledge the physiological reality that boys and girls are very different. The wussification of America is in full effect.
It’s not easy to fight, and it’s no fun. I didn’t get in fights as a kid and shied from confrontation because, frankly, I was scared of it. I didn’t know how to fight ideologically or physically. My father was—and is—an incredible man, but confrontation isn’t necessarily his forte. My rough-and-tumble days as publisher of a conservative campus publication taught me how to stomach ideological warfare, and the infantry taught me to channel nervous energy into physical confrontation—both learned skills that have served me well in life. For generations, American fathers especially but also mothers—in different forms and in different ways—taught their kids to be virile, to value strength, vigor, and victory. My dad taught me through basketball, and I will teach the same to my kids through any number of sports, activities, and arenas. Fifth-place trophies will meet the trash bin, bike helmets already gather dust and football helmets will be put to good use, bullies will be confronted, the woods will be open for free-range exploration, and their natural inclinations—male or female—will be encouraged and nurtured. At the same time, my kids will be taught to fight and compete hard, but that if they lose, to lose with grace; they will be taught to take risks, but also look both ways before they cross; they will be taught not just to confront the bully, but to defend the innocent, bullied kids without yelling for an adult “mediator”; they will be taught to enter the woods with a compass they know how to use; and they will be taught to treat everyone with kindness and respect regardless of gender, race, class, or sexual orientation. Being a virile people doesn’t mean being brutes or barbarians—it means raising citizens physically and morally capable of defending the freedom they’ve inherited.
As Roosevelt forcefully states, shame on those who “profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are.” Our republic cannot afford to be creating an entire generation of kids unequipped to confront the harsh realities of a dangerous, unfair, and hotly contested world. Some of the things listed above may seem trivial—like helmets and hand sanitizer—but a society unwil
ling to embrace small risks and get dirty soon loses the ability to fight for larger things on a longer time horizon. Morality is useless without the ability to muster action, especially when something must be fought for—either on a battlefield of a great war or in the public square of a great republic. America needs men, just as they’re going out of style.
CHILDREN
Just as important as the ability to work and the ability to fight at need is the third aspect of a good citizen—a family full of children. Said Roosevelt, “The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children, so that the race shall increase and not decrease.” In this address Roosevelt is principally talking about having large families, remembering that “chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land.” Not only does having many kids—three, four, five, or more—ensure the growth of a people (and in America’s case, a principle!), but it is also a check against the “self-indulgence” of peoples. Having children is difficult. It’s expensive, exhausting, and utterly life altering. Kids change your plans, priorities, and ability to pursue certain forms of happiness. They humble you, teach you, and keep you grounded. Children, whether you are a billionaire or a bellhop, are a common experience in humanity. Parents want to provide for their kids, raise them to be good people, and give them every opportunity to succeed.
For some, not having kids is not a choice but instead a painful reality. Roosevelt is not talking about the physically barren; he is talking about the “willfully barren.” Oftentimes, but certainly not always, couples who decide not to replace themselves—meaning they have only one child or none at all—are consciously or unconsciously prioritizing other, more seemingly sophisticated, endeavors. It is understandable that desires for career, leisure, and even convenience can take precedence over a large family, a trade-off made especially prevalent given the proliferation and permanence of women in the workplace. Men used to work and women stayed at home; that arrangement is increasingly scarce and will never return to its previous levels. As a result, even more intentionality—for parents and in policy—must be given to childrearing. The reason, as Roosevelt asserts, is that no amount of “refinement . . . delicacy . . . progress . . . riches . . . art and literature . . . can in any way compensate for the loss of the great fundamental virtues; and of these great fundamental virtues the greatest is the race’s power to perpetuate the race.” Large families are the lifeblood of healthy societies and, as I outlined in the previous chapter, they are growing scarcer in modern America.
Roosevelt doesn’t just mention children; he specifically mentions healthy children—children of character who grow up to become good citizens. Healthy children don’t happen without good parents and healthy families; in fact the number of kids is irrelevant, or even counterproductive, without it. Roosevelt specifically talks about the “good housewife and housemother” and the “good husband and father,” without which good children are rarely raised. Roosevelt calls them the “homely virtues of the household” and holds them in high regard, even higher regard than the refined habits of the cultural elite. These formulations—which sound very old-fashioned to the modern ear—do not mean telling women they must stay at home, barefoot and pregnant. To the contrary, they are helpful in reminding women and men that even in a modern America where both parents often work, childbearing and childrearing must still be a priority, and need to be made viable. This means that women (or men) should not be stigmatized by society if they decide to stay at home with kids. If anything, where possible, full-time childrearing should be encouraged, praised, and incentivized. That said, mothers who do choose to work—or have no choice but to work—should be greeted by public policy that makes it possible to juggle having a career and having lots of healthy children. Working women are critical to America’s economic engine, and our policies need to reflect that. Men don’t get a free pass in either scenario and must be partners—in the workforce and at home—to ensure healthy children, because healthy families and marriage are the building blocks of society. The family is, simply put, the greatest antipoverty and equal opportunity tool in our arsenal, and is the key incubator of future good citizens. This is not a socially conservative construct, but instead a civic imperative. Strong families = healthy children = good citizens.
Despite this truth, conservatives have lost a lot of ground in the area of “family” through an obsession with preventing same-sex marriage—a fight I was engaged in for quite some time, especially in college. A principled stance against same-sex marriage remains a legitimate, personal choice and all sides of the issue should be tolerated openly in the public debate. Christians and other religious adherents must be afforded the religious liberty to continue their principled opposition to same-sex marriage; however, I now believe that fight to be counterproductive. Opposition to same-sex marriage itself only undermines our credibility to fight deeper problems facing American families and children. My personal preference is for children to have a father and a mother, as I believe that relationship brings—conventional or otherwise—the best mix of natural, emotional, and psychological ingredients for young boys and girls. But this belief does not mean same-sex couples cannot be good parents. Many have been, and many are; just as many traditional families are toxic, and bad for children. The focus of family policy should instead be on strengthening families and creating good citizens by preventing wanton divorce, encouraging large, productive families, and facilitating a work-life balance that allows for both economic freedom and active parenting.
I’ve taken to calling myself a child of privilege simply because I was raised by great parents who invested in my development. By measures of American society, we were an average family—middle class, public schools, no connections, and no advantages—except the greatest advantage of all. My two brothers and I were raised by God-fearing, America-loving, and hardworking parents who took pride in the “homely virtues of the household.” My father was a teacher, basketball coach, and eventually an athletic director at a local public school and my mother was an involved homemaker who worked various part-time jobs and was active in our lives and community, from rebounding basketballs in our driveway to watchdogging the curriculum of our schools. Both were full-time parents—again, hardworking, strong, and principled—who instilled values that have enriched every aspect and season of my life. This is not to say that every family has to do it the way Brian and Penny Hegseth did, only that investing in families—conventional, unconventional, traditional, or fractured—is absolutely fundamental to raising good citizens who will work, fight, and appreciate the exceptional country they have inherited.
CHARACTER
Underwriting all three previous ingredients—working, fighting, and raising children—are the “solid qualities” of character. Without character, and the perspective that comes with adhering to principles larger than yourself, hard work, the ability to fight, and raising healthy children become hollow and, in many cases, counterproductive. Character is the indispensable attribute of good citizenship. Says Roosevelt, “There is need of a sound body, and even more of a sound mind. But above mind and above body stands character—the sum of those qualities which we mean when we speak of a man’s force and courage, of his good faith and sense of honor.” Alongside the “homely virtues” of the household, Roosevelt further describes the “great solid qualities” of character as “self-restraint, self-mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution.” Courage, faith, honor, self-restraint, common sense, individual responsibility, and resolve—all are used by Roosevelt to describe character, and all are in shorter supply in today’s America.
Of course, many other words inform character. Attributes like love, honesty, humility, and respect top the list, and Roosevelt would embrace those, too. However, the “solid qualities” he listed in the speech demonstrate a preference for civic and martial virtues over exp
licitly religious or “socially conservative” values. He lists “faith,” front and center, because belief in God is a core tenet of character. America’s founders cited faith—time and time again—as necessary for any republic to flourish; George Washington’s farewell address called “religion and morality . . . indispensable supports” of political prosperity. Roosevelt would agree but does not dwell on religiosity as the only tenet of character. Not because religion isn’t important, but because it is not in and of itself sufficient for good citizenship. In addition to faith, other secular values—like honor, hard work, courage, and common sense—must be instilled in citizens of a republic. Whereas the church and families are where religious values are mostly instilled, it is up to America’s civic and public institutions (and families!) to instill the “solid qualities” of good citizens. From Boy Scout troops to athletic fields and the military to civic organizations, America must forge these attributes into future citizens. This is especially necessary given the postmodern emphasis on “soft qualities” of character like self-esteem, fairness, gentleness, sensitivity, and tolerance. America’s youth are taught, ad nauseam, to “coexist” but not to confront real evil. These chickens, figuratively and literally, will eventually come home to roost when we need hawks and eagles instead.
