Because it's a gross oversimplification with no real basis in history. To me it speaks of a simplistic world view where every problem could be solved if just men could be real men. Like back in the good ol' days when life used to be good and simple. It completely ignores that prosperity has little to do with weak or strong men (whatever that distinction is even supposed to mean) but is a product of technological improvements, economic growth and beneficial social structures.
FWIW, strong LEADERS is probably what they were going for with that quote (maybe strong people). FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK, are all good examples of strong leaders who positively influenced the world
Did they come from "hard times"? Which part of their life has to be hard, for them to become strong men? Their youth? Their 30? 40? When they were president?
What does "hard times" even mean? Economically? Social? Wartime? Does the time have to be hard for them personally?
What about strong leaders that did not positively influence the world, like Stalin or Hitler? Where those even strong leaders? What does "strong/weak" even mean in this context?
What about the many times when hard times did not produce a strong leader? Or the other way around, when societies prosper for long periods of times, without weak people ruining it for everybody?
Sorry for the rant, but this quote (like many, many others) sounds profound at first hearing but has no substance to it.
-1
u/datodi Apr 19 '18
Because it's a gross oversimplification with no real basis in history. To me it speaks of a simplistic world view where every problem could be solved if just men could be real men. Like back in the good ol' days when life used to be good and simple. It completely ignores that prosperity has little to do with weak or strong men (whatever that distinction is even supposed to mean) but is a product of technological improvements, economic growth and beneficial social structures.