During her New Hampshire primary concession speech last evening, Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Methodist, said: “You know, my family and my faith taught me a simple thing, do all the good in all the ways you can for all the people you can.”
Social media credited her with quoting Methodism’s founder John Wesley. The quote has been widely attributed to Wesley for likely much more than a century, but there’s no evidence he ever said it. And she didn’t say that he had, at least not here. A new biography about Clinton aimed at teenagers is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton: Do All the Good You Can, and the publisher’s ad credits the quote to Wesley.
A few years ago Methodist scholar David Watson, citing Methodist scholar Richard Heitzenrater, showed this reputed Wesley quote to be erroneous. Read Watson’s article here. Typically the full false quote is:
Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.
Although Wesley never specifically said those words, the adage does fairly accurately represent the do-gooding practical side of the Wesleyan tradition. Wesley probably wouldn’t reject the sentiment even if he were around to correct the record.
The confusion over this supposed Wesley quote recalled Ronald Reagan’s citation of a celebrated supposed Abraham Lincoln quote in his 1992 Republican Convention speech:
You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Reagan apparently had heralded the favorite quote for years. When first meeting Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s, before either was in power, he shared the quote, prompting her to retrieve the same quote from her purse. The quote was long in wide circulation, and I myself had heard it many times before Reagan’s speech. In those pre-Internet days, researching the authenticity of quotes wasn’t easy.
Liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote a snooty Washington Post column against Reagan’s false quotation, whose history he traced to an ex clergyman of the early 20th century. Schlesinger wondered how anyone could think Lincoln capable of such “tinny banalities” as though a “tout for the Chamber of Commerce.”
A letter writer to the Post admonished Schlesinger, pointing out an authentic Lincoln quote expressing similar sentiments:
Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence . . . I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.
Similar to this corrective to Schlesinger, a Twitter friend reminded me of an authentic Wesley quote from his sermon “On Worldly Folly” that echoes the false one:
Do good. Do all the good thou canst. Let thy plenty supply thy neighbour’s wants; and thou wilt never want something to do. Canst thou find none that need the necessaries of life, that are pinched with cold or hunger; none that have not raiment to put on, or a place where to lay their head; none that are wasted with pining sickness; none that are languishing in prison? If you duly considered our Lord’s words, “The poor have you always with you,” you would no more ask, “What shall I do?”
The false Wesley quote represents Wesley’s spirit if not his actual words. So long as it’s properly understood as such, Methodists like Hillary Clinton should be fine to recall it as intrinsic to their upbringing and to the Wesleyan movement.
Comment by Dan on February 10, 2016 at 8:40 am
What’s the most troubling is the implicit coda Hillary and other progressives add; “and use the power of the government to tax and coerce people into doing what you consider good.” This is the part of progressive Christianity and modern Wesleyan oriented theology that I detest.
Comment by Alan on March 5, 2016 at 7:23 am
I get that. But do you detest widespread poverty at least as much? Do you detest the people having no access to health care in a rich country? Do you detest seeing children go hungry in the midst of plenty? What here most truly deserves your impassioned detestation?
Comment by Curt Day on February 10, 2016 at 11:12 am
One trouble with a couple of quotes Reagan “copied” from Lincoln revolves around how the rich got rich and the strong got strong. For how should those who are poor and weak regard those who are rich and strong when the latter have reached their state in life by exploiting the former? As for Reagan, didn’t he support the apartheid South African regime? As for Thatcher, wasn’t she a fan of Pinochet? And weren’t these objects of venerations a reflection of how both Thatcher and Reagan helped those who were rich and strong?
Comment by Pudentiana on February 10, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Reagan’s speech of 1986 as published in the July 23rd, NYT: “The root cause of South Africa’s disorder is apartheid, that rigid system of racial segregation wherein black people have been treated as third-class citizens in a nation they helped to build. America’s view of apartheid has been, and remains, clear: apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable. The United States cannot maintain cordial relations with a government whose power rests upon the denial of rights to a majority of its people, based on race.”
Comment by Curt Day on February 10, 2016 at 8:04 pm
Pudentiana,
The trouble is that actions speak louder than words. And that Reagan continued to not only maintain cordial relations with the South African regime, he condemned the African National Congress along with Nelson Mandella. And when he did oppose sanctions, his own, they were viewed as weak and as have little effect on both South Africa and the companies doing business with South Africa.
Now one could compare Reagan’s “constructive engagement” with South Africa with his willing participation in supporting terrorist attacks on Nicaragua in the name of anti-Communism. Here we should note that the US supported the dicatorship of the predecessors of the Sandinistas: Somoza. Likewise, Reagan backed the Taliban fighters who also engaged in terrorism. It seems that when battling a leftist gov’t, supporting terrorism was not seen as extreme because all leftist governments are the same–not really. But South Africa merited “constructive engagement.”
A similar inconsistency followed Reagan’s policies to Chile and its dictator Pinochet. On the one hand, it is said that Reagan opposed Pinochet’s rule in the early to mid ’80s. But that opposition was not strong enough for him to instruct America’s UN ambassador to condemn Chile’s human rights violations in an ’87 resolution. In addition, the US did not oppose multimillion dollar loans requested by Chile from the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank.
There are other examples as well. It isn’t just our words that count, it is actions as well.
Comment by Pudentiana on February 11, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Uncle!
Comment by steve8714 on March 4, 2016 at 10:39 am
Reagan maintained cordial relations with all governments not trying to export their revolutions, but he did speak frankly to all, from his heart and head.
Comment by Curt Day on March 4, 2016 at 11:25 am
Steve8714,
Is that how he treated the governments in Central America? Or did he attack them while being patient with the apartheid gov’t of South Africa
Comment by steve8714 on March 4, 2016 at 11:37 am
Sandanistas tried to export their revolution to other CA, SA countries, and here through fellow travelers. We just engaged in asymmetrical warfare. War is hell.
Comment by Curt Day on March 4, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Steve,
The Sandinistas tried to undo the damage done by the US supported Samoza dictatorship. There were other dictatroships in Central America that the US supported as well
Comment by Karl von Buddenbrock on March 5, 2016 at 1:46 am
Very amused by the comments on my country. Reagan’s cautious approach to the apartheid government was totally justified, and history will judge it to be wise.
Take it from a South African living under the incompetence and tyranny of a government who run a corrupt country, waste tax payers money and squander what wealth this country can produce. 16000 murders a year at least. 4 rapes every minute.
And the twist is this – apartheid lives on. I am disadvantaged by my colour, even though I resisted apartheid. Due to a useless police force, my sons have been held at gunpoint in their own rooms. But I was fortunate. White farmers are murdered in cold blood on their farms.
But that’s what you get when you set up the idol of African socialist government, with a worldly messiah whom everyone worships. It’s a mess, and it’s worse than the (wrong) apartheid government ever was.
Comment by Curt Day on March 5, 2016 at 3:21 am
Karl,
Let me ask, what was socialist about the replacement government?
Comment by Karl von Buddenbrock on March 5, 2016 at 6:46 am
Thanks for your interest. All the hallmarks are there. I’m comparing to typical African socialist states, not to be confused with the better variations like the social democracies of Scandinavia etc. Let’s see. What’s the first thing an African socialism tries to do, like Zimbabwe. Instead of giving opportunity, make everyone poorer. This is the case in the “new” South Africa. Tax the 5 million taxpayer (read productive workforce) to support the other 49 million. And of course like the former eastern block and Cuba – standards plummet. Next hallmark – attempts at nationalisation of the mines and other primary economic activities. These haven’t been achieved yet, but the will is there. When that happens all stakeholders will get a good bonus cheque, but when international investors run like hell, everything is lost. Remember Russia when Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall? They were dependent on grain from the US. Reagan had them by what MacArthur referred to as the proverbials, but of course it was because the ideology is inherently weak.
Next hallmark – LAND GRABBING. Despite the fact that South Africa’s unique history shows that colonisers and indigenous peoples arrived AT THE SAME TIME, there’s this pathetic guilt trip that the whites must give the land back. And they’re thinking of doing this with more coercive means. Already hundreds of thousands have been murdered on the farms, despite denials that it is an agenda. Remember Zimbabwe’s abject poverty is due to this amazing move by Mugabe.
And then last, but not least, the rank corruption at the highest levels. Very much a socialist characteristic. Some are more equal than others. I don’t have to go into Zuma’s shenanigans – they have been reported on internationally.
As the great Baronnes said – they’re spending other people’s money.
Comment by Karl von Buddenbrock on March 5, 2016 at 6:49 am
Sorry I forgot to mention the little red t shirts festooned with hammers, sickles and AK 47’s. And a president that sings his favourite song “Umshini wami”. Which is “my machine gun.” Kalishnikov – used for “settlers”.
In summary, instead of improving standards, rather bring them down for everyone.
Comment by Curt Day on March 5, 2016 at 11:27 am
Karl,
Emphasizing opportunity is often done while neglecting to mention disparity. So that what becomes the measure fro economic progress and performance is a selective focus on how well the wealthiest. This is what is done in America. The health of Wall Street is used to summarize the financial health of the whole nation. Only Wall Street is simply ade up of financial institutions and we know their history from the 2008 collapse.
If you are going to go Socialist, why not include a Marxist variant? And the first sign of socialism is the redistribution of power.
Most on the Left know that Apartheid has lived on.That is because in restructuring political power, there was change in who owned the wealth.
Comment by Karl von Buddenbrock on March 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Thanks Curt. This would carry on forever, as it is something I’ve argued long and hard with many a rose-tinted socialist. Enjoying the interlocution. Had a look at your blog site. Mine http://www.pastor-karl.net. If nothing else, it’s encouraging to engage on these topics while agreeing on fundamental Christian doctrines. I’m assuming that includes, in your case, good reformed (hopefully Calvinist) theology.
Comment by The Bodacious Professor on March 5, 2016 at 12:38 am
So… you frown upon governments trying to export their revolutions? So what was Iraq in 2003? Or is our revolution the only acceptable one?
Comment by steve8714 on March 4, 2016 at 10:37 am
Everybody exploits everybody. The coffee growers of the third world exploit the coffee habit of the first world. The Japanese exploit Bluefin fishermen. The key to justice is everybody decides for himself in that place and time the price of that exploitation. In a free economy we call that a market.
Comment by Curt Day on March 4, 2016 at 11:23 am
And in Paul’s time, almost everybody was involved in sexual sin.
Of course, those who live in the Capitol can smile on the truth that everybody exploits everybody. But in reality, not everybody in the districts neither want to nor get exploit everybody.
So I guess if your Bible is comfrotable with you exploiting people, then you already have the answer you want.
Comment by steve8714 on March 4, 2016 at 11:41 am
The market is a force of nature, human nature, which last I saw predates the Bible. I tire of politicians who use religion to put a bayonet in my back to extort money from me, and use religion to justify it. At the same time, Hillary and Bill are wealthy beyond the dreams of the unwashed, like you and I.
Comment by Curt Day on March 4, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Steve,
The market is not a force of nature, otherwise the discipline which contains the market would be in the natural sciences. But economics is a behavioral science, not a natural science.
In addition, there have been changes in how the natural sciences are studied as well as what is studied. But some forms of economics, such as that which supports neoliberal capitalism has not changed for quite a while.
So yes, as in other areas of human life, we do apply the scriptures to either affirm or try to correct what is being practiced
Comment by steve8714 on March 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm
Amazing how you selectively read and ignore.
Comment by Curt Day on March 4, 2016 at 2:55 pm
steve,
Just responding to what you wrote. But if you want to insult, go ahead
Comment by Joe on March 7, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Didn’t FDR recognize the Soviet Union in 1933? Touche
Comment by Curt Day on March 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm
Joe,
First, how did he recognize them? And what does that imply?
Comment by accelerator on February 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm
The problem is that if HC is a devout Methodist, the identifier has little meaning other than “I go to church.” So do a lot of devout Unitarians. Unless of course the identifier fits, which might explain why Methodism in the US is heading over the cliff.
Comment by james r ruston on February 11, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Reagan did do good, for the rich.
Comment by Ella Pauline on February 11, 2016 at 10:46 pm
I’ve wondered if the erroneous quote had its origins in Wesley’s second General Rule:
“It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,
Secondly: By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men:”
Comment by diana rosen on May 3, 2019 at 12:20 am
So who said the quote? Anyone else claim it? It’s a wonderful epithet worthy of a goal for how to live for anyone:
Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.