Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard
Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken.
Abigail Adams, the fiery matriarch of a new nation, spoke with the clarity of one who understood the nature of power when she said: “Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken.” In this truth, she compares arbitrary power—authority wielded without justice or restraint—to the hardest of stones: rigid, unyielding, and therefore fragile. What refuses to bend will, in time, be shattered.
The essence of her wisdom lies in the paradox of strength. Power built on fairness and law can adapt, flex, and endure; but arbitrary power, grounded in tyranny and pride, resists all correction until it meets its breaking point. Like glass struck by a hammer, it appears solid but collapses in an instant. Adams, who lived in the crucible of revolution, knew firsthand that kings who govern without consent invite their own ruin.
History roars with examples. The French monarchy, proud and absolute, ignored the cries of its people for bread and justice. It seemed untouchable, clad in tradition and force. Yet in 1789, that hardness was broken by the storm of revolution, and the crown rolled into the dust. So too did the mighty Soviet regime, which crushed dissent with iron and claimed permanence, only to splinter apart in a single generation. In both, we see the truth of Abigail’s words: arbitrary rule, though hard, is brittle.
Even in her own age, Adams saw the brittleness of British rule over the American colonies. The empire, in its obstinacy, imposed taxes without representation, seeking obedience without respect. Its arbitrary power provoked resistance until the bonds were broken in the flames of independence. From this experience, she understood that true strength lies not in hardness, but in justice that bends enough to endure.
O children of tomorrow, take this lesson as a shield: beware of building power on pride and oppression, for it will not last. Authority without justice is brittle, no matter how fierce it seems. Arbitrary power may dazzle with its hardness, but it is destined to shatter. Build instead upon fairness, mercy, and law, for these are supple and enduring, able to weather the storms of time. In this, Abigail Adams speaks across the centuries: power that refuses to bend will, at last, be broken.
Yyangnari
When I read this, I immediately think of how people in power often mistake rigidity for strength. But history shows that uncompromising rulers usually meet violent ends or collapse under their own weight. I wonder if Adams was warning not only governments but individuals too—about how pride or control can lead to self-destruction. Do you think flexibility and empathy are the real sources of lasting power?
DTDu TaN
This feels like a timeless truth about human nature and authority. What strikes me is how relevant it still feels centuries later. Power without restraint might appear strong, but it isolates those who hold it. I’d like to ask: can humility coexist with authority, or does the pursuit of control inevitably harden leaders over time? It’s a delicate balance that every generation seems to struggle with.
HTNgoc Hai Tran
I find this statement fascinating because it ties moral philosophy to physical imagery—hardness leading to fragility. It reminds me of how authoritarian regimes often collapse from within. But I’m curious: is all power inherently at risk of breaking, or only when it becomes arbitrary and unchecked? Maybe the problem isn’t power itself, but the absence of accountability that hardens it into something brittle and unsustainable.
VAVan Anh
This quote makes me think about how power without limits tends to destroy itself. The idea that something rigid can easily break feels like a warning about inflexibility in leadership. Do you think this applies to modern governments or corporate structures today? I wonder if true strength lies not in dominance, but in adaptability and fairness. Can a system remain stable if it’s built on fear instead of trust?