It is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. [Adlai Stevenson, speech, New York City, Aug. 27, 1952]
I read this sentence from principle | Origin and meaning of principle by Online Etymology Dictionary
I understand it literally and love it, but I cannot grasp its complete idea from my 27 years experience.
The context is Stevenson's 27 August 1952 address to the American Legion Convention :
http://www.adlaitoday.org/articles/think3_patriotism_08-27-52.pdf
'We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility which will enable America to remain master of her power—to walk with it in serenity and wisdom, with self-respect and the respect to all mankind; a patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a lifetime — these are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.'
The context doesn't seem totally to clarify the final sentence. The best sense I can make of it can perhaps be illustrated most readily by an example. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a concerted effort in the US at least at a legislative level to secure the principle of equal rights for black citizens. There was a real struggle to secure this principle, which met with hard resistance particularly in states such as Mississippi. But eventually a raft of legislation went through. The principle had been fought for but securing it in practice - getting US society and the political system to live up to the principle of equal rights - proved a much more difficult task. One in fact that still remains to a very significant extent unaccomplished.
Perhaps others can throw more light but this is as clear as I can make Stevenson's quote. He has a powerful point.
Two elements are important:
A) principles
Values are relative to social groups. Principles are absolute to all people.
Some social groups appreciate obesity (e.g. Peruvian natives understand it makes a woman strong, so she's valuable), others don't. Some social groups appreciate jewelry, others don't. Those are values, which depend on the social group. Principles, on the other side, are appreciated in all societies. Honesty, truth, loyalty, etc. are principles valuable in all societies.
Your statement deals about principles, like honesty, kindness, service.
B) Standing up for something implies embodying it.
We learn more (I think it is >80%) from someone's acts than from his words. My mother used to say that she wasn't racist but I always saw her acting racist with certain kinds of people. In consequence, I noticed I followed her ways regarding racism. It is still difficult for me to embrace equality, but I am firmly committed to change that on me.
Not only acting what we say is important for sending the message. When someone stands up for something but acts the opposite, it's being incoherent. Incoherence justifies anything, that's a mathematical fact (see the principle of explosion on Wikipedia). Religious books are examples of incoherence, which is natural since they were written by ordinary people, very ignorant, due to the context. If you base your actions on a religious book, you can justify mathematically (using logic) that killing your family or friends is good. Not joking. Holy wars are an example.
Therefore,
Standing up for some principle (like honesty) is easy. It is easy to criticize someone on the government. But embodying such principle is difficult.
A lot of people criticize corruption, but become corrupt when reaching a political position involving monetary decisions. First, because their incoherence makes them believe they are acting fine. Second, because they are just repeating others' ways of acting, so they continue to teach such ways. That's the big fallacy denounced by your original statement.
