“A radical is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air. Source A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards. A liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest—at the command—of his head.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt offered these pithy definitions during a radio address in 1939. His words painted a clear picture of the political archetypes of his era. However, the world has changed dramatically since then. The political landscape is more fractured and polarized than ever before. This raises a compelling question: Do FDR’s clever characterizations still hold any meaning today? Can we use his simple framework to understand the complex world of 21st-century politics?
Let’s explore each of his definitions. We will see how they stack up against our modern political realities. The comparison reveals both surprising relevance and significant gaps.
Unpacking the Mainstream: Liberals and Conservatives
FDR’s descriptions of liberals and conservatives focus on their approaches to progress. He frames the liberal as a pragmatic thinker who acts based on reason. This individual uses their abilities—their “legs and hands”—as directed by their intellect. In FDR’s view, liberalism was about thoughtful, forward-looking action. Today, the term “liberal” often aligns with support for social safety nets, government regulation, and civil rights. While modern liberals certainly champion progress, the focus has shifted. The debate now often centers on the scope of government intervention rather than simply the command of one’s head.
Conversely, FDR paints the conservative as someone who is capable of progress but simply refuses to move. He describes a person with “two perfectly good legs” who has never learned to walk forward. This suggests a resistance to change rooted in stubbornness or fear. Modern conservatism, however, is a more complex ideology. Proponents emphasize principles like individual liberty, free markets, and a strong national defense. They often argue that their caution preserves essential traditions and prevents reckless change. Therefore, they see their position not as an inability to move forward, but as a principled stand for established values.
The Shifting Center
The meanings of these labels have evolved significantly. During the New Deal era, FDR’s liberalism involved a massive expansion of federal power to combat the Great Depression. Today’s political discourse is different. Issues like climate change, digital privacy, and globalism present new challenges. Consequently, what it means to be a liberal or a conservative is constantly being redefined. The core tension between progress and preservation that FDR identified certainly remains. However, the specific policies and philosophies associated with each term have transformed, making his definitions feel more like historical snapshots than timeless truths.
At the Fringes: Radicals and Reactionaries
FDR’s definitions for the political extremes are particularly sharp. He calls the radical “a man with both feet firmly planted in the air.” This imagery suggests a person completely detached from reality. Their ideas, while perhaps well-intentioned, are impractical and utopian. This characterization can still resonate today. We often see it applied to figures on the far-left or far-right who advocate for sweeping, revolutionary changes to the system. These proposals, such as completely dismantling capitalism or establishing an ethnostate, are frequently criticized by moderates as unrealistic and disconnected from the practical realities of governance.
On the opposite end, FDR describes the reactionary as “a somnambulist walking backwards.” This paints a picture of someone not just resisting progress but actively trying to undo it. They want to return to a previous, often idealized, state of affairs. This definition remains remarkably relevant. We can see this impulse in movements that aim to roll back rights for certain groups or restore past social hierarchies. These groups often express a deep nostalgia for a bygone era. They actively work to reverse societal changes they view as detrimental, fitting FDR’s description of a sleepwalker moving in reverse.
A New Political Landscape
While FDR’s archetypes offer a useful starting point, they fail to capture the full complexity of modern politics. The simple left-right spectrum he implies has become increasingly inadequate. Today, political identity is far more nuanced and often more intensely felt. One of the most significant changes is the rise of extreme political polarization. Decades ago, there was more ideological overlap between the two major parties in the United States. Now, the divide is a chasm.
This growing gap means fewer people identify with the moderate positions FDR’s definitions imply. Source Instead, many people cluster at the poles, making compromise and bipartisan action incredibly difficult. This polarization is arguably the defining feature of our current political era.
Beyond the Old Labels
Furthermore, new political movements have emerged that don’t fit neatly into FDR’s four categories. For example, where does a populist fit? Populist leaders often blend traditionally left-wing economic ideas with right-wing social or nationalist views. They defy easy categorization as liberal, conservative, radical, or reactionary. Similarly, ideologies like libertarianism, which advocates for minimal government intervention in all aspects of life, sit uncomfortably within Roosevelt’s framework. It combines a conservative desire for economic freedom with a liberal stance on social issues. These hybrid ideologies highlight the limitations of a model created nearly a century ago.
In conclusion, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s political definitions were a product of their time. They provided a witty and insightful commentary on the political figures of the 1930s. While elements of his descriptions—especially of radicals and reactionaries—still ring true, the overall framework is too simplistic for today’s world. The meanings of “liberal” and “conservative” have shifted dramatically. Moreover, the rise of polarization and the emergence of new, complex ideologies demand a more nuanced understanding. FDR’s words remain a clever piece of political rhetoric, but to truly understand our current moment, we need a more modern map.