1/4 - On "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - this is a valid insight, but it has three valid interpretations and another (the most common) which is backwards
-
-
Acton and Pitt were working within a much older tradition about the way in which slavery/despotism corrupts both the master and the slave Here it is not power that corrupts the master, but the power his slaves gain over him: he depends on them, they subvert him in self-defense
Show this thread -
And (finally), there is a version related to "hard times make hard men"; superfluous power abets carelessness, while challenges inspire severity and piety Note that Acton's examples are not what we would call "absolute monarchs" (e.g., William III)
Show this thread -
5/4 PS - Also worth noting Acton is not asking whether *giving ppl more power is good or bad*, but how to write about them (as a historian) He rejects out of hand the Nixon defense (if the president did it, it's no crime)
Show this thread -
6/4 e.g. if a statesman has enemies assassinated or has foreigners kidnapped and killed, that is noteworthy Not a moral judgment of statesmen so much as metaethical pt about gathering the data on which we judge him (eg: which gov'ts kill more ppl? first, tally deaths)
Show this thread -
7/4 Acton goes overboard in saying one crime overshadows a whole career (what high standards we had!), showing some of the presumption Creighton worried about But he is surely right to say we must look at such acts with open eyes
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.