"If you're not a Liberal at the age of 25..."

I don’t want to turn this into a political thread (yet). Just the facts, ma’am.

“If you’re not a Liberal at the age of 25 then you have no heart. If you’re not a Conservative at the age of 35 then you have no brain.”

This bit of wisdom is offered by Conservatives quite a lot on this and many other boards. It is often attributed to Churchill, and many others. My question is who actually coined that phrase? And when? And what were the definitions of liberal and conservative in that time and place?

I’d always heard it using ‘socialist’ rather than ‘liberal’. It’s referenced at Quoteworld (?) here: http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/1847

That’s different to the version I heard, which is something along the lines of “if a man is not a communist at fifteen, he has no heart. If he is still a communist at thirty, he has no brain.”

Just offered here as a Googling option.

I’ve never heard either of those versions before. Here’s guessing that Churchill never said it.

I’ve always heard it as “if you are not a Communist at 18…” etc. And I’ve always thought it was attributed to Bertrand Russell.

I should have added into my OP “What was the actual original quote?” Obviously, that as well has been obscured.

I’ve heard many variations (communist/liberal/rebel vs capitalist/conservative/conformist). The basic gist is that young people are supposed to challenge the system. By adulthood, you should realize that you don’t get very far by working against the system and you should become part of it.

Young people have the luxury of bucking the system because they generally don’t have to provide for themselves or other dependents.

The gist that I’ve normally encountered, in the context in which it was said, was that 35 (or 40) year old Liberals are idiots. But that’s neither here nor there – I just want to pin down the original quote.

The original quote is in Staggerlee’s link:

It’s not really about “Liberal vs. Conservative,” so much as a about the radical political passions of youth and the moderation that comes with maturity. The specific ideology is not that important. I have no idea how or when it got perverted into the condescending, self-congratulatory platitude which has now become ubiquitous.

Thanks, Dio. Do you have a cite for that? I looked up Briand in Wiki and didn’t see that quote.

D’oh! If you have no dictionary at the age of 25, you have no money. If you can’t click the link in the 1st response at the age of 45, you have no brain.

Me? A culpa. Definitely a culpa.

Do people tend to become more conservative as they age? If so, why? Is it purely a function
of rising income as you get established in your career (starving college student vs. rich CEO)?

Doesn’t really sound like Russell.

He does not strike me, based on his philosophy and his own political activities, as a likely candidate for criticizing those who do not become conservative as they get older. Russell was supporting nuclear disarmament and protesting against the Vietnam War when he was in his 80s and 90s.

I’m not sure.

I followed the classic, boring path of abandoning leftism in my twenties, and becoming a conservative by thirty. For me, it wasn’t about increased wealth (I had more disposable income then than now), but just that I found myself doing more and more mental gymnastics to remain on the left, and in the end I decided, “Hey, fuck it. Admit you’re a conservative, dude.” So I did.

This is probably a really good GD topic. Don’t know if it would be better to start a new thread or just kick this over. Mods?

The origin I believe is given on this page:

It’s since be used, adapted by, or attributed to just about everybody, but those look to be the ur-models.

And the early usages show that it was applied to contemporary notions of radicalism and how radical ideas are popular with youth but that most people grow out of extreme positions. This seems to be far more supportable than the current usage of liberal and conservative, which are positions that one can maintain regardless of age. Another good quote dumbed down to meaninglessness.

Which looks like it was copied and pasted directly from this page.

That page also suggests that Thomas Dekker (1577-1632) ripped off Paul McCartney (1942-).

So? I wasn’t making any comments on the wonderfulness of the page I cited, just quoted it because it had my argument in concise form.

WikiQuote credits it to George Bernard Shaw: