“It is not the critic who counts… not the one who points out how the strong stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the one who is actually in the arena… the one whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and who spends him or herself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if failing, at least fails while daring greatly so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt

What do the following have in common:  Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz… members of the tea party, the Christian right and people on the far left… talking heads, editorial writers, and bloggers who pontificate about what others ought to do… and extreme partisans in elected office?

They are all critics who labor outside that dusty, sweaty, bloody arena where opinions get turned into policy, implemented as programs, tested by reality and judged on concrete results. They are not held accountable for the truthfulness of their utterances, or the veracity of their opinions.

These critics share another characteristic, despite their divergent and often irreconcilable views. Each is absolutely certain that they are the exclusive holder of “truth”. Each seems to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is at best misinformed, and at worst an enemy of America. Their interest is not in seeking the common good; rather, it is in upholding a particular ideological agenda.

They also share a common methodology: From their above-the-fray perches on the right and the left they launch condemning screeds at those inside the arena, those who make and implement difficult political decisions.  They use scorn, sneers and satire instead of ideas and facts. They interrupt and shout down anyone who offers a compelling vision that differs from their rigid orthodoxy.

I have been on both sides of the line… inside the arena striving tirelessly, and outside as a critic. I prefer the inside, the feeling of enthusiasm that comes from great devotions. It was there that I experienced the joy of spending myself for a worthy cause, and the feeling of triumph at high achievement. I also learned the feeling of loss when, even though daring greatly, I came up short. But, I was never timid, and I knew both victory and defeat.

The life of the critic is different, and the rewards are marginal. Some, like the prime-time commentators, make bundles of money, but they are showmen and women rather than thought provokers. Most are simply true believers who want others to do their work for them. It is much easier to point out how leaders stumble, to complain that they didn’t do enough or that their ideology was not pure enough, than it is to actually climb in the arena.

The arena is not for those cold and timid souls whose function in life is to sit back and criticize rather than actually seeking to accomplish something. It is not for those who would rather blame someone else when ideas fail, those who evade any personal accountability by staying a safe distance from the action. The arena is only for those who are willing to risk it all, to dare greatly, for the chance of high achievement. Our nation desperately needs more of the later and fewer of the former.