Teddy Roosevelt: The Ultimate Moderate
I have made it no secret that Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite president. I’ll go farther than that; he’s one of my all-time favorite historical figures and a personal hero and role model for me. Understanding my admiration for this man will help you understand my underlying political assumptions and as for the purpose of this post, what I mean when I use the word “moderate.”
The big issue of the turn of the century was capital vs labor. The infancy of the nation was absent of such a problem because capitol had not grown large enough. The problem arose during the industrial revolution and the nation was growing into a previously unheard of state. As the rest of human history would suggest, people would find themselves in one camp or the other. From their spot, they would hurl insults at the other side and blame them for all problems arising in the conflict. Policy preferences on either side would be a direct reflection of the camp of the person. If one was for labor, the problems of the world were all a result of business owners and everything in the world would be better if we could get rid of them. If one was for capital, the problems in the country were those lazy and riotous workers whom the government needs to put down.
I think we find these problems have persisted throughout all of history and persist today. If it’s not capital vs labor it’s blacks vs whites or Israel vs Palestine or Democrats vs Republicans or Westerners vs The Developing World or any number of issues.
Teddy Roosevelt was smart enough to realize that both sides (capital and labor) were important. He was objective enough to realize that both were corrupt. And he was brave enough to proclaim it. Roosevelt believed in workers receiving ample conditions and having a voice in their stake of the economic stratum. However, he scorned the violent protests of the labor movement. Roosevelt also believed that those men who, through hard work and ingenuity, were able to advance in the business world and own a large amount of capital were good for the country. The workers do not have jobs without the business owners. However, he was never afraid to expose the dishonest, selfish, and predatory practices of some businesses, no matter how it might cost him politically in the short run.
If there is one lesson which I would rather teach my fellow Americans than any other, it is to hound down the dishonest man – no matter what his condition – and to brush aside with impatient contempt the creature who denounces dishonesty only when it is found in some special social stratum. Hunt down the dishonest man without regard to class; and if he belongs to your class, hunt him down a little quicker.
We could learn a lot from his example as we tend to take our shots at other groups of people without looking at ourselves or taking a second to acknowledge the redeeming values and value of the other schools of thought.
Honesty may not get you elected or re-elected, but it is always the best policy.
TR is an enigma to me.
Nice post.
TR wasn’t the opponent of trusts that people have made him out to be. Compare his record on the subject to Taft’s. Taft oversaw the filing of 80 more anti-trust suits than TR, including US Steel, which TR had personally approved. TR was good at making speeches, Taft was good at getting results. Then, as now, people preferred fancy rhetoric to actual results.
Roosevelt was the catalyst. Taft would have been nothing without Roosevelt.
When Taft broke up US Steel was when TR decided to run against him in 1912. TR approved the merger that resulted in the formation of US Steel. Taft didn’t make the speeches about breaking up the trusts, he did it. TR didn’t break up the trusts, he made speeches about it. Taft wouldn’t have had to suffer through a presidency that he didn’t want and would have been remembered as one of the greatest jurists in American history, as he actually was.
Roosevelt talked big and carried chopsticks, Taft didn’t say a word and carried a lead pipe.
Yes Roosevelt approved US Steel. But that does not mean one flying crap to me. You are misrepresenting history when you make it seem like that was the sole reason he decided to run in 1912. He was agitated at Taft long before US Steel.
Again, before Roosevelt, anti-trust regulation was unheard of.
And the fact that that he didn’t file as many suits as you might think actually points to what I think is a positive in him. He was not anti- big business. He was anti predatory big business. If a business could demonstrate social responsibility, he would leave them alone. You, Kyle, being opposed to big business would support anyone like Taft. The point of anti-trust regulation was not to get rid of trusts but to regulate them. You find this throughout just about everything he says on the topic.
Anti-trust regulation had been around for 20 years before Roosevelt became president and the provisions of the laws were not fully enforced until Taft became president. I admire TR for many of his policies, but his hypocrisy on the issue of trusts is something I most certainly do not approve of. The laws were not targeted at “predatory” trusts, they were targeted at trusts. Taft enforced the laws on the books, TR selectively enforced the law when he wanted to. There is nothing admirable in that kind of behavior.
Although I wouldn’t label him a moderate (he was a right-of-center Progressive), I will agree that his progressive rhetoric was both inspiring and influential. I agree with Chris that without Teddy, Taft would of been nothing and many of the labor reforms and the general economic prosperity would have ceased to exist, however, I am not so sure that Roosevelt was so keen on brining down the “dishonest” business barons — Roosevelt contrived a collusion-ridden pact with the economic powerhouses of the early 20th century (Morgan, Rockefeller…).
Regardless, I do esteem Roosevelt one of America’s greatest presidents and do very much admire his ambitious life style — the strenuous life, wasn’t it?
I’m not saying that TR wasn’t a great president; he was and he is one of my favorites. But the way that you arrived at that same conclusion, Chris, is what I am criticizing. The entire post you praise him for his economic policies which were nothing but talk. He didn’t really push the passage of tougher anti-trust legislation and he barely enforced what was on the book.
All I’m trying to do on this thread is to get you to look at your reasoning, because how you arrive at your answer is much more important than the answer itself. In fact, in law school, they keep telling us the answer is pretty much irrelevant, the reasons behind it are all that matter.