We will do whatever must be done

 ChatGPT

THOUGHT OF THE DAY:     
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, from his Minnesota State Fair speech in 1901 

The "you will go far" is new to me.

That extra phrase is a nice little surprise because the version that became famous is usually shortened to just:

    “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

Actually, even that full sentence is not the version most people remember. The popular quotation is usually reduced further to:

    “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

The longer form comes from Theodore Roosevelt’s speech at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901, where he was discussing foreign policy. The idea was that a nation should avoid unnecessary threats or bluster (“speak softly”) while maintaining enough power that its words carried weight (“carry a big stick”).

The “you will go far” part is interesting because it changes the flavor. Without it, the saying sounds almost like a doctrine of power: be polite, but be strong. With it, it sounds more like advice about personal conduct or success: restraint plus capability leads to progress.

There is also a bit of historical irony. Roosevelt did not invent the idea from nothing; he had borrowed the phrase “big stick” from an old West African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” He had encountered a similar expression in correspondence and speeches before using it publicly. So the phrase that became associated with American foreign policy may have started as a broader proverb about diplomacy and life.

It is a good example of how quotations get trimmed. The part people keep is often the punchiest part, while the little tail that explains the intended lesson disappears. Similar things happen with “the customer is always right” (usually missing “in matters of taste”) and “the ends justify the means” (which is a summary of a much more complicated argument).

Of course it is the complete opposite of the way foreign policy is being conducted now.

Yes, the contrast is striking. Roosevelt’s phrase implied a particular style of diplomacy: calm public language, patience, and an underlying reserve of power. The “softly” part was not weakness; it was the idea that you did not need to constantly advertise your strength because the capability behind your words gave them credibility.

Modern foreign policy styles vary enormously by administration and country, but the approach you are pointing to is often described as the opposite: public pressure, threats, highly visible displays of leverage, and frequent escalation of rhetoric. The assumption there is that making the cost of opposition clear can force quicker results.

The interesting thing is that Roosevelt himself was not a pacifist or averse to using force. He expanded American influence aggressively, including the construction of the Panama Canal and interventions in Latin America. His “speak softly” was not “avoid confrontation”; it was more like avoid unnecessary confrontation because you have options.

A historian might say the difference is less about whether a country uses power and more about how power is presented. Roosevelt’s model depended on ambiguity and credibility: everyone knows what I can do, so I do not need to shout it. The modern approach you are referring to relies more on making intentions explicit and immediate.

There is an old diplomatic argument behind this: does a threat become stronger when it is repeated loudly, or does repeated threatening make it less credible because the other side learns that words and actions may not match? Roosevelt’s era favored the latter view: preserve room to maneuver and make your commitments count.

Making threats is useful only if you can and, in the end if one must, do carry them off.  Meaningless threats, like "wipe then off the face of the Earth" are counterproductive.

That is very much the traditional logic of deterrence. A threat only works if the other side believes three things:

    Capability — you actually have the means to do what you say.

    Credibility — you are genuinely willing to do it if the situation requires.

    Proportionality and clarity — the other side understands what action would trigger the response.

A phrase like “wipe them off the face of the Earth” is usually more an expression of anger than a useful diplomatic instrument. It creates several problems: it may be impossible to carry out literally, it leaves no clear threshold for what would cause such a response, and it can trap the speaker into either acting recklessly or appearing to back down.

This was one of the lessons of nuclear-era strategy. The most effective deterrent statements were often very carefully worded because credibility mattered more than drama. A vague but enormous threat could be less convincing than a limited, specific commitment backed by visible capability.

There is also a paradox: the strongest negotiators often make the fewest threats. If your opponent knows you have options and that you are consistent, a quiet statement can carry more weight than repeated public declarations. That is close to Roosevelt’s “speak softly” idea.

Of course, there are cases where leaders deliberately use exaggerated language for domestic audiences or to signal resolve. The difficulty is that rhetoric aimed at one audience can be heard very differently by another. A statement meant to rally supporters can accidentally reduce diplomatic flexibility by making compromise look like surrender.

I rather doubt such hyperbole has much benefit with domestic audiences either; a more general statement such as, "we will do whatever must be done" would work better here.

I think that is a good distinction. Hyperbole may energize a particular audience in the short term, but it is not necessarily persuasive even domestically. In fact, it can have the opposite effect if people recognize that the speaker is unlikely to follow through.

A statement such as:

    “We will do whatever must be done.”

works because it leaves several useful things intact:

    It signals determination without committing the speaker to a specific action.

    It preserves flexibility as circumstances change.

    It allows an opponent a way to back down without forcing a humiliating confrontation.

    It sounds more like a serious commitment than an emotional outburst.

There is a long tradition of this kind of language. Winston Churchill was often powerful not because he threatened extravagantly, but because he conveyed resolve. His famous wartime statements generally avoided promises of specific revenge and focused instead on endurance and purpose.

The irony is that extreme language can actually weaken a leader’s position. If someone says “we will destroy everything,” the audience has to wonder: Will they really? If the answer is obviously no, the statement teaches people that the speaker’s words are not reliable. A measured statement backed by demonstrated capability can carry much more weight.

It comes back to Roosevelt’s “big stick”: the stick is most useful when people already know it is there. Waving it constantly can make it look less like strength and more like insecurity.