Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theodore Roosevelt absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 03/09/2012 8:28:13 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica

Not long ago I made an entry titled "Woodrow Wilson absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers", well, I am no fan of any progressive. They are all dangerous to me. So Wilson attacks the founding and I'm going to call it as it is. The same is said for Roosevelt. Progressivism is America's cancer and it's not just in one party. I came across an article on The Heritage Foundation titled "Progressivism: Still Dangerous After All These Years, which is primarily about Roosevelt. In it, they highlight one of the things that came out of Roosevelt's pie hole:(Direct source)

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back. American democracy, of course, must mean an opportunity for everyone to contribute his own ideas to the working out of the future. But I will go further than you have done. I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.

There is a lot here. First, we see the exact same disdain for the Declaration via the ideals that made it so great. But beyond that, Roosevelt states plainly that he is promoting Germanic ideals(Prussianism), which is something that I have made observations about in the past. You can trace a lot of progressive roots back to Germany, idea wise. But most importantly, note how he uses the phrase "to go back". That is the exact kind of arrogance that progressives have held for well over a century now, that these ideals that made America so great are somehow 'backward', or regressive. Liberty is not backward. The tyranny of progressivism is what's backward.

Every progressive means harm to the USA, democrat or republican - all progressives. All of them. That is their intent. And after a century of these people and their ideas and policies, it's inarguable. They have proven it in their actions and words.


TOPICS: Education
KEYWORDS: constitution; declaration; democrats; founders; liberalism; liberalprogressivism; liberals; progressingamerica; progressives; progressivism; roosevelt; theodoreroosevelt; wilson; woodrowwilson

1 posted on 03/09/2012 8:28:15 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Noumenon; JDoutrider; OneLoyalAmerican; unkus; detective; iceskater; surroundedbyblue; ...
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

Summary: He's attacking the ideals behind the Declaration

2 posted on 03/09/2012 8:30:02 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Not Teddy, Franklin.


3 posted on 03/09/2012 8:42:26 AM PST by freedomson (Tagline comment removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomson

I am pretty sure that the quote was TR’s.

There is a lot to approve of in Theodore Roosevelt’s character and life, but not his aggressive Progressivism. And he was a BIG fan of the Prussian style of governance.


4 posted on 03/09/2012 8:52:30 AM PST by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

He was a Representative, Police Commissioner of NY, Under-Secretary of the Navy, a Colonel in the US Army, Vice President and President before turning 50. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize...oh yeah, and was awarded the Medal of Honor.

What have you done?


5 posted on 03/09/2012 8:59:16 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Never judge historical figures by today’s standards.


6 posted on 03/09/2012 9:04:37 AM PST by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomson

TEDDY Roosevelt was the first president to suggest national health care!

He WAS, very definitely, a progressive and thus hostile to our founding ideals!


7 posted on 03/09/2012 9:09:00 AM PST by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedomson

Teddy, too.


8 posted on 03/09/2012 9:15:06 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

I’m reading “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt” by Edmund Morris right now.

It’s an amazing book.

TR was a freak. He despised Thomas Jefferson and Jeffersonian government. He much preferred the Alexander Hamilton model.

TR was a major progressive and was a supporter of eugenics.

Fascinating man, but very dangerous in his grandiose thinking.


9 posted on 03/09/2012 9:20:39 AM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Teddy Roosevelt was a “progressive era” president (and admirer of Alexander Hamilton) who is credited with being a great environmentalist for having nationalized thousands of acres of land and built dams and other “consevation” projects with taxpayer dollars. But this,too, was a form of Neo-Hamiltonian corporate welfare. Mining, farming, timber, and other interests lobbied for these programs because they would be enriched with “free” dams and irrigation, waterway improvements, cheap, subsidized water (mostly for agriculture), cheap timber land (leased for next to nothing from the government), and cheap access to grazing lands


10 posted on 03/09/2012 9:24:38 AM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

“I think the President is clearly insane in several ways, and insanest upon war and its supreme glories. I think he longs for a big war wherein he can spectacularly perform as chief general and chief admiral… Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the great republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for an audience.”

— Mark Twain on Theodore Roosevelt


11 posted on 03/09/2012 9:55:47 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

John McCain said that Teddy Roosevelt was his role model:

“I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold.”

Conservatives come in several varieties. These include the limited-government, Jeffersonian variety; the big-government, militant, national greatness variety; the nanny-state social conservative variety; and the country-club Republican variety.


12 posted on 03/09/2012 10:01:53 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic

Republicans come in several varieties. Conservatives do not.

Conservatism by its definition is small government. Nanny state Republicans and Country Club Republicans and other Big Government Republicans can’t be Conservatives. Baby Bush fancied himself a Conservative but in the end, he proved not to be one with the TSA, Homeland Security, big wars, Medicare D and the bailouts.

We haven’t had a Conservative president since Reagan.


13 posted on 03/09/2012 10:23:17 AM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedomson

The quote was Teddy.


14 posted on 03/09/2012 10:27:00 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Yes, he was a progressive, no doubt about that. Don’t get fooled by the Republican in front of his title (Hoover was even worse).

Teddy was sort of a Ford styled progressive. Ford believed in meddling in the personal life of his employees.


15 posted on 03/09/2012 11:01:00 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
Interesting you bring up Hamilton. Hamilton was of the pro-British camp while Jefferson wanted to align with France. I think for all Jefferson's qualities, he was wrong about France, but that is another topic.

But Jefferson was right about rejecting the pro-Federal government model of Hamilton. I think present history shows that Jefferson was right to warn us about the strong federal government that Hamilton was so much in favor of.

16 posted on 03/09/2012 11:03:37 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Yes, and he called it Compassionate Conservatism. Ugh.


17 posted on 03/09/2012 11:05:15 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedomson
Not Teddy, Franklin.

Yes, Teddy. While TR was an attractive personality in many ways he was first and foremost an elitist. You just have to read his autobiography to see it. He just drips with the elitism that motivates most of society's tormentors. I'd love to have him as a neighbor but would never vote for him.

18 posted on 03/09/2012 11:05:23 AM PST by Paine in the Neck (Romney's judicial appointments were more radical than Obama's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Jefferson was WAY wrong about France. Sober, rational people tried to tell him that the revolution in France was missing the key ingredients of the American Revolution.


19 posted on 03/09/2012 11:19:17 AM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Conservatism by its definition is small government.

No doubt that's your definition of conservatism, and many self-described conservatives would agree. But lots of folks, like McCain in the example I referred to, have different definitions. Here's a good definition as it relates to politicians in the 21st century:

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]

WRT to Bush II, he supposed it necessary to create "compassionate conservatism" to save conservatism just like he had to "abandon free market principles to save the free market." Of course, he didn't do it all by himself; he had help from the likes of towering conservative intellects like Rove, Frum, Gerson, Dreher and Brooks. And before that, Bush I made short work of Buchanan's paleoconservatism with his own "kinder, gentler" version of conservatism.

20 posted on 03/09/2012 1:50:55 PM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic

My Grandfather, Born 1886, hated TR, the Bride at every Wedding and the Corpse at every funeral, because of his ego and anti-republican ways.


21 posted on 03/09/2012 1:59:28 PM PST by Little Bill (Sorry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Greetings ProgressingAmerica:

TR was also the first President to run the USA into deficit spending without a war. TR burned through the entire US Navy budget by issuing far east sailing orders to the “White Fleet;” and stranding the fleet overseas without cash for purchasing coal to sail home; until Congress borrowed money to bring them home.

Cheers,
OLA


22 posted on 03/09/2012 8:58:35 PM PST by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Greetings EEGator & cumbo78:

TR was created out of whole cloth by the lickspittle, "Yellow Journalism" press controlled by William Randolf Hearst; just as 0bama was created out of whole cloth by a lickspittle fawning press through "journalistism."

There was no battle of San Juan Hill for which the "Roughriders" action TR would earn the Medal Of Honor. And TR's action hardly meets the award standard for a MOH citation.

In fact, May 11, 1898 at Cardenas, Cuba; a genuine MOH hero of Spanish American War emerged. Captain of US Revenue Cutter Hudson, 1st Lieutenant Frank Newcomb. Newcomb and his crew placed USRC Hudson into harms way to defend, and then tow USN vessel Winslow to safety. Winslow was earlier crippled and disabled adrift by the ashore battery. Without Newcomb's action, Winslow would have made for a great war prize.

Because this loss at Cardenas was a major embarrassment for the US Navy, reporting on Newcomb's story was squashed by Hearst. History repeating in this second coming of progressivism?

Fair and biased,
OLA

23 posted on 03/09/2012 9:31:35 PM PST by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cumbo78

Oops, forgot you in the “To” line of my previous.


24 posted on 03/09/2012 9:33:49 PM PST by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OneLoyalAmerican
You are quite correct about Hearst and TR's career benefiting from his propaganda. It was uncannily like 0bama's '08 campaign.

That said, there really was a Battle of San Juan Hill, or San Juan Heights. Bloodiest battle of the war. It was won largely by the 10th Cavalry - the Buffalo Soldiers - who Hearst tactfully left out of the story. Interesting, too, because Black Jack Pershing was with them. That is not to disparage the 3d Cavalry - the unit to which the Rough Riders were attached - who assaulted Kettle Hill with the 10th. There weren't any cowards on those hills, including the Spanish, who laid a 3/1 kill ratio on the attacking Americans.

TR's MOH was, IIRC, really really posthumous. I'm not a big TR fan but I'm not sure he would have approved.

25 posted on 03/09/2012 9:49:43 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Greetings Billthedrill:

Great soldiers soldiered on both sides in Hearst’s War. WRH spiked stories which included the Buffalo Soldiers and the enlisteds from aboard the USRC Hudson; as not to distract from Hearst’s pre-determined headlines and “TR, Hero” scripts. Hearst didn’t even like the charted name “Kettle Hill” for TR’s faux heroism. So WRH cast the mold for Hollywood’s creative license style; renaming the location “San Juan Hill.” No doubt this summer we’ll see Hollywood re-write Barry Soroto’s extraordinary record in a similar manner.

What’s I find most fascinating, during McKinley’s era Congress knew better. So Congress actually commissionioned special gold and silver recognition medals for the USRC Hudson officers’ exceptional bravery; the only of their kind in US history. These are not Medals Of Honor.

Which leaves SN1 Douglas Munro the USCG’s sole MOH winner.

Cheers,
OLA


26 posted on 03/10/2012 12:14:45 AM PST by OneLoyalAmerican (In God I trust, all others provide citations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson