A Quote by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

What higher obligation does a President have than to explain his intentions to the people and persuade them that the direction he wishes to go is right? — © Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
What higher obligation does a President have than to explain his intentions to the people and persuade them that the direction he wishes to go is right?
The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men.
People are only influenced in the direction in which they want to go, and influence consists largely in making them conscious of their wishes to proceed in that direction.
The president does not have any obligation to make a consensus appointment here. What the president's obligation is, is to pick a judicial conservative, and I believe that's what he's gonna do.
I think the voters believe that when you become president of the United States, you have a higher obligation and a higher standard than anybody in the world. And if you violate that standard, they're going to remember it on election day.
Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he's treated. We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements, but we still have a long ways to go in the country.
My obligation, if I become president, is to give another direction to Europe than the one that is being forced upon us today.
[The American President] has to take all sorts of abuse from liars and demagogues.… The people can never understand why the President does not use his supposedly great power to make ’em behave. Well, all the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.
I think art has a right — not an obligation — to be difficult if it wishes. And, since people generally go on from this to talk about elitism versus democracy, I would add that genuinely difficult art is truly democratic.
This church does not belong to its President. Its head is the Lord Jesus Christ, whose name each of us has taken upon ourselves. We are all in this great endeavor together. We are here to assist our Father in His work and His glory. Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this church is small or of little consequence.
When I see Mario Gotze, his development does not go in the right direction. He has outstanding qualities, but he has not reached his potential for whatever reason. His charisma is not so good, fellow players, coaches, fans and the media do not feel that he is fighting against his current situation. He's more an introvert player.
Evolution has no moral direction. An evolutionary understanding of human nature can explain the differing intuitions we have when we are faced with an individual rather than with a mass of people, or with people close to us rather than with those far away, but it does not justify those feelings.
It's better to go slowly in the right direction than go speeding off in the wrong direction.
The Constitution makes very clear what the obligation of the United States Senate is and what the obligation of the president of the United States is. To allow a Supreme Court position to remain vacant for well over a year cuts against what I think the intentions of the framers are and what the traditions of the Senate and the executive are.
I've discovered that half the people would love to go into space and there's no need to explain it to them. The other half can't understand and I couldn't explain it to them. If someone doesn't know why, I can't explain it.
But I do believe this - I believe that fundamentally, society is headed in the right direction or wants to head in the right direction, and I think judges have an obligation to try to help it head there.
It becomes 'one's own' only when the speaker populates it with his own intentions, his own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker gets his words!), but rather it exists in other people's mouths, in other people's contexts, serving other people's intentions: it is from there that one must take the word, and make it one's own
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!