Do you think more Americans should do what Kennedy said and “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country”? Why, why not?

44 comments

  3. Depends. Are we under existential threat from a foreign power? Are we literally at war to ensure survival? Then yes.

    Otherwise, no. We are a hyperindividualistic society, and therefore we should strive to improve our lives first (or our families lives if you’re married), then our extended family, then our community, and only then our nation. Why should I strive to help the country at great cost to myself and my family’s standard of living?

  4. A country is not tangible, it’s not a thing that thinks, acts, or provides. A country is a geographic boundary where people live. I don’t owe the country anything, the country doesn’t owe me anything. So that whole statement is moot.

    What should have been said is, “Ask not what Americans can do for me, ask what I can do for Americans”. I do think more Americans should do that. We thrive as a species because we are social and rely on each other for things. We should all be working to provide for each other.

  5. Nice sounding platitudes in a political speech are just that. Its encouraging and still good leadership. Part of a president’s job is to inspire. He did that.

    However, as it isn’t defined what exactly is meant to be done differently and left up to interpretation. As such, you can not quantify who and in what position is or is not doing something for their country.

  6. Sounds like great propaganda for you to put in a lot into the country but get little in return.

  7. I like Friedman’s retort to JFK’s speech:

    “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?
    Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.”

  8. No, I very strongly disagree. The goal of a nation should be to support its citizens. Obviously it’s preferable to treat your country kindly than not to, but in my opinion ensuring that the nation is benefiting its people should be a higher priority than one’s own contributions.

  9. This “got mine, fuck you” is one of the biggest problems in America. We should absolutely be working to improve things for everyone because it will come back around. By lifting people out of poverty, we reduce the main driving factor of crime and make our own neighborhoods safer. By making education and healthcare affordable we improve our standing economically which raises quality of life for everyone.

  11. Absolutely. Today, too many people have their hand out, waiting for someone to give them something (that someone else paid for). We need more people who are trying to make their community, their nation, their world a better place rather than just trying to take care of number 1.

  12. They keep taking my money and fucking wasting it on bullshit, while our infrastructure crumbles, our middle class disappears, and more slide into desperate poverty, all while the corporate hacks and government apparatchiks line their pockets with our money. The Federal government keeps growing and the Surveillance State edges further towards dystopian tyranny. Fuck them all, regardless of party, I don’t owe them shit, they owe US at this point.

  14. It was a profound statement from the time-something new and unheard of. Inspirational. It probably helped people feel empowered to serve the nation in however ways they could.

    Given the vast differences culturally and politically from then to now, it’s nonsensical.

    Right now, this statement isn’t landing the way it was initially landing; as intended.

  15. I think, and I’m being generous in this/going against my normal cynicism, but generally speaking I’d say most do honestly. We pay taxes, don’t actively try and make things worse, and generally do try and help each other out some. Don’t get me wrong, loud group of assholes making the rest of us look bad and large majority of our politicians just straight up suuuuuuck, but I think if you took a real average we’re more helpful to each other than not.

  16. Yes, they should do what Kennedy suggested, because thats the engine by which our lives get better.

  17. Countries are communities of people and there is a certain level of cooperation required to make it function.

  21. Because I don’t feel like our country does enough for us.

    For the rich, maybe. Not for the majority of us.

    So why should I go to war so the rich can be richer? They won’t send their own kids. They’ll pay money so their kids get to not go fight, while the rest of us have to go.

  22. It’s a two way street. Yes, more people should do more civic service wise for their country and community. Help others, be active in their neighborhoods, etc. Also, our government should do more for us than for donors. Programs to help those down on their luck, healthcare affordability and access, family programs, infrastructure etc.

  23. No. It’s nationalistic drivel meant to sound profound. A one way relationship with the state—in which you are expected to do things for the state but the state isn’t expected to do things for you—is the kind of thing you see in autocracies, not liberal democracies.

  25. I agree with it and think it’s in critically short supply today. The basic idea is “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.” Any community where people attempt to extract without contributing will eventually fall apart.

    This isn’t exclusive with wanting a government that serves its citizens—fighting for that sort of just government and protesting injustice is part of what JFK was referring to. That era’s political leaders built most of the important social programs people rely on today and dismantled Jim Crow.

    To JFK’s generation (the GI Generation), this sentiment was obvious. It was not an abstract thing: they had sacrificed personal interests for their country and communities during the Great Depression and World War II.

    FDR’s speech in 1936 frames how GI Gen came to view their role:

    >There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

    After the war, the GI Gen. built an affluent society where personal hardship and sacrifice was comparatively unnecessary. The idea of things like the Peace Corps was to instill the same kind of spirit in younger people that WWII had on their generation. That attitude never really took with the Boomers.

    For several decades now, we’ve been fragmenting as a society and viewing the country as a zero sum game where adversarial groups fight for advantage. We’re rightly cynical of government because decades of small government, pervasive lobbying and legislative gridlock has turned “what government can do you for you” into an ironic statement—the government, by design, doesn’t really do much for anyone. But to get back to a government that does benefit us, we need a more involved citizenry invested in their community, who don’t hate each other, and willing to sacrifice to improve things.

  26. No, I already pay taxes and that’s quite enough in my book. I have 0 interest in risking my life in whatever pointless war we stumble into next to make Halliburton and Academi richer.

  27. To be honest, I have always thought this was just a pat phrase that has very little substance behind it. You might as well just say, be less selfish and think about your neighbors more. Sure, fine. But ultimately, the government is there to help people who need help. Too many people are dismissive of one of the government’s core functions and they tend to cite this platitude among others to support their dismissiveness.

  28. Yes but only if you’re interpreting it to mean what can you do for your fellow citizens and your community. The government should serve its people, not the other way around.

  29. I’m with Milton Friedman on this one.

    >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.” It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. 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 that 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 worshiped 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.

  31. He’s not actually urging us to ask those questions, he’s encouraging a different mindset to be taken.

  32. Fuck no.

    It might have been more applicable then when WWII was fresh in everyone’s minds and we genuinely thought Russia was an existential threat that our government was protecting us from.

    It’s a bit different now when we’ve secured our place in the world but it feels like our government has decided to neglect taking care of its populace that sacrificed so much to prop this country up to what it has become.

    I’ll give back to the country exactly what the country/government is giving to me – the bare minimum.

  33. I’d do a lot for my fellow Americans and the actual people living here but I won’t do anything for our government. I won’t fight wars for them. I won’t give anymore of my money to politicians.

  34. Speaking as a veteran, ***Fuck*** no. We do plenty already by paying taxes. Stop using my money to give wealthy people and corps tax cuts.

  36. I don’t, as some other replies have done, equate country with government.

    And yes, instead of focusing on selfish interests, people should be encouraged to think in terms of volunteering, donating, reducing pollution, helping neighbors, driving with concern for others, approaching housing issues with concern of how others will live instead of limiting it to your own property’s values, etc.

  37. Aside from putting our differences aside and just focusing on making our country a better place overall and fixing the divide between our people that the politicians and rich people put between us. Not really, If our country did what it was supposed to do to help us out or at least was trying then yes. But unfortunately it’s not happening yet

  38. Please folks. Instead of blindly spinning an interpretation of that one line, read the damn speech (5 minutes at most) before you critique the message.

    [JFK inaugural speech](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/apr/22/greatspeeches)

    And then everyone saying your country needs to do more for you, consider that the speech was given 60 years ago and since then the country has greatly expanded welfare programs, ended govt enforced segregation, elected a minority president, fought a cold war, roughly doubled the size of the average American home, created the Peace Corps to help 100s of millions around the world in abject poverty, greatly expanded educational opportunities, and a hell of a lot more.

    Yeah, I know. The country still needs a LOT of work, but have some perspective of the overall msg and meaning and time.

  39. I think we should ask both.

    We should be willing to work towards the common good of all Americans, but I think we should also be willing to stand up and say “We deserve better” when we’re being treated wrongly.

  41. Those were better times, our government needs to start doing for us. Starting with healthcare and shored up social security and social programs .

  42. I know that this doesn’t exactly answer your question but as someone who is going to be graduating college in the next year, my eventual goal is to get my MPA and work for the government 🙂

  44. My thoughts are basically summed up [in this campaign ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86-3yuzn5UU) from Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey.

    As humans born into the modern-day Western political system, we’re subject to a social contract where we’re theoretically afforded safety and order by the state in exchange for some amount of freedom, money and our participation in the civic system. What do you do when this contract starts to break down?

    As Americans, [we work a *lot*](https://money.com/americans-work-hours-vs-europe-china/), and [we do really high-quality work (in some sense of the word)](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/27/joe-biden/biden-almost-right-us-workers-most-productive/). We [attend rallies, vote (certainly not enough, but we do vote), participate in town halls](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-participation-index-eiu). We, and I mean America’s middle class and America’s poor, uphold our end of the social contract. We do a *lot* for our country. Why then, should we expect in return that:

    * [Social safety nets that are meant for America’s most vulnerable also happen to be some of the most difficult, byzantine and administratively burdensome entitlements to apply for and obtain](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/how-government-learned-waste-your-time-tax/619568/)
    * [The legal representation you’re entitled to in the event that you’re falsely accused of a murder and you can’t afford your own lawyer is of such low quality that you might end up in prison for that very reason](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/10/cj-rice-fetterman-pardon-pennsylvania-2022-midterm-elections/671781/)
    * Bloat makes the construction of public infrastructure and other goods [some of the most costly on a per-unit basis](https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america) in the entire world
    * Ultimately, all manner of kleptocrats (absolutely Trump and his cronies, but certainly not just them) are able to siphon off the fruits of our labor and enrich themselves

    Every *single* public good that America ought to furnish for us in exchange for what we do is degrading, becoming smaller, or disappearing altogether. So like in this ad, this is what I believe. Americans do a lot for this country. Why shouldn’t we ask what the country can do for us?

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like