"Men want power in order to do something. Boys want power in order to be something"
About this Quote
Sevareid’s line lands like a newsroom verdict: power is either an instrument or a costume. The genius is the grammar. “Do” versus “be” isn’t just a tidy contrast; it’s a moral sorting mechanism. He’s diagnosing two species of ambition that look identical from a distance (both crave power) but diverge at the moment of use. One treats authority as a lever to move the world. The other treats it as a mirror to manufacture a self.
The subtext is less about age than about maturity. “Boys” here is a deliberately needling term, a way of stripping swagger of its dignity. Sevareid implies that status-hunger is fundamentally insecure: it needs power to stabilize an identity that can’t stand on its own. That’s why this kind of leadership so often becomes theatrical. When power is about “being,” it demands constant affirmation - titles, deference, dominance displays - because the point isn’t outcomes, it’s aura.
Context matters: Sevareid came of age in the mid-century American press, watching war, bureaucracy, and the televised presidency turn leadership into both a high-stakes craft and a public performance. His jab reads like a response to the era’s mix of genuine statecraft and grandstanding - the rise of men who mistook command presence for command.
The line also flatters nobody. The “men” in his formulation aren’t saints; they can “do something” terrible. But at least their power is tethered to action and accountability. “Boys” want the shortcut: legitimacy without labor, identity without competence. That’s why it still stings. It’s a test you can apply to any leader in five seconds: are they chasing results, or chasing the feeling of being the kind of person who gets to sit at the table?
The subtext is less about age than about maturity. “Boys” here is a deliberately needling term, a way of stripping swagger of its dignity. Sevareid implies that status-hunger is fundamentally insecure: it needs power to stabilize an identity that can’t stand on its own. That’s why this kind of leadership so often becomes theatrical. When power is about “being,” it demands constant affirmation - titles, deference, dominance displays - because the point isn’t outcomes, it’s aura.
Context matters: Sevareid came of age in the mid-century American press, watching war, bureaucracy, and the televised presidency turn leadership into both a high-stakes craft and a public performance. His jab reads like a response to the era’s mix of genuine statecraft and grandstanding - the rise of men who mistook command presence for command.
The line also flatters nobody. The “men” in his formulation aren’t saints; they can “do something” terrible. But at least their power is tethered to action and accountability. “Boys” want the shortcut: legitimacy without labor, identity without competence. That’s why it still stings. It’s a test you can apply to any leader in five seconds: are they chasing results, or chasing the feeling of being the kind of person who gets to sit at the table?
Quote Details
| Topic | Wisdom |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Eric
Add to List
