Posted on 09/07/2001 1:33:33 AM PDT by ouroboros
Teddy Roosevelt wasn't fond of free-trade foolishness
By Patrick J. Buchanan
September 6, 2001
This letter appeared on Page A14 of the Editorials section of The Washington Times on September 6, 2001.
In his Aug. 31 Commentary piece, "Fast tumble into hypocrisy," my old friend Ed Feulner lacerates Democrats for not embracing President Bush's "free trade agenda," including trade-promotion authority.
This is "about money," Ed writes, "money that could be in the pockets of Americans." The United States "had an agricultural trade surplus of $12 billion with the rest of the world last year....Think how much bigger the wealth pie would be if the United States could trade freely with more countries."
Well, last year's $12 billion agricultural surplus is impressive, but it looks a little anemic alongside the $324 billion trade deficit the United States ran in trade in manufactured goods and somewhat pitiful alongside the $450 billion merchandise trade deficit the United States ran in all goods in 2000.
Ed urges Democrats to show the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill. Probably not the best example. The future Rough Rider, in his letter to Henry Cabot Lodge in 1895, declared: "Thank God I am not a free trader....Pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fibre."
Roosevelt had no use for think-tank free traders. Experience had not shown, he said, "that we could afford...to follow those professional counselors who have confined themselves to study in the closet; for the actual working of the tariff has emphatically contradicted their theories."
Roosevelt's 1904 platform read: "Protection, which guards and develops our industries, is a cardinal policy of the Republican Party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad."
If Teddy is the wrong Roosevelt to cite, Ed certainly could reference Eleanor or Franklin. Both were liberal free traders, big time.
In recent months, we have been inundated with a pro-Teddy Roosevelt barrage from PBS to the Weekly Standard. He was, writes David Brooks, "a distinctly American kind that married nationalism to individualism." His bust adorns the desks of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole. His profile is carved into Mount Rushmore.
In fact, the Roosevelt legacy is not individualism; it is certainly not liberty. His continuing legacy is one of unprecedented government intervention. Roosevelt crushed property rights. He constructed huge public works projects. He also helped lead the U.S. into its disastrous slide into imperialism and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in numerous foreign conflicts (and millions of foreigners). In reality, the leviathan state in all its evil owes much to TR.
After the early years of an up-and-down political career, McKinley appointed the upstart Republican as assistant secretary of the Navy (1897), from where he helped agitate for war with Spain. Democrats, who then were the party of states rights and free enterprise (until they were hijacked by TR's distant cousin 30 years later), were generally against such a war.
Although McKinley originally opposed attacking Spain, Roosevelt attempted to undermine his boss, declaring to his friends that the president "has the backbone of a chocolate eclair." When McKinley led the country into war after the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor supposedly by Spain (although studies of the wreck found that the explosion came not from a Spanish mine but from within the ship), Roosevelt resigned his position to form a regiment called the "Rough Riders."
Having helped start an unjustifiable war, Roosevelt now sought to find fame in the conflict. The regiment which he formed is best known for its charge against the pathetically equipped Spanish on San Juan Hill in Cuba.
The war whetted Roosevelt's desire for power, and upon coming home as a self-proclaimed war hero, he was elected governor of New York, a position he held for only two years. In 1900, over the objections of many high Republican officials, McKinley tabbed Roosevelt as his running mate, and the pair easily won the presidential election. While conservatives hoped that TR would disappear into the vice presidency, the 1901 assassination of McKinley placed the power-hungry politician in the White House.
Although Roosevelt promised not to rush into a progressive agenda, his character quickly overwhelmed his assurances to the Republicans. In 1902, he ordered the U.S. Justice Department to enter antitrust proceedings against John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. While the move was politically popular--and Roosevelt the "trustbuster" still garners the praise of leftist historians--it had no economic justification whatsoever.
Standard Oil had become the single dominant producer of oil not because it had used coercion, but rather because it was by far the most efficient petroleum firm in the world. Furthermore, by the time the government took action, Standard's market share had already begun to fall, as other producers followed Rockefeller's lead in making their operations more efficient. Those facts meant nothing to Roosevelt, however, who was looking to further his reputation at the expense of U.S. companies, and the U.S. Supreme Court gave the president what he wanted: an order to split the giant company into smaller geographical entities.
The year 1902 was significant on other counts. First, the Justice Department also successfully sued the Northern Securities Company, a stock holding company which supposedly suppressed competition of western railroads. And note: Roosevelt's "trustbusting" always had an explicit corollary: there were "good trusts" and "bad trusts," the good ones being those politically aligned with him.
While there was no justification for the Northern Securities case, Roosevelt committed an even worse act of violence in 1902 against private property rights in his war against business owners. The United Mine Workers struck the Pennsylvania coal fields in May of that year, and six months later, with fuel supplies dwindling, the miners and owners held firm. Although Roosevelt had no legal authority to intervene, he called a conference between UMW leaders and the mine owners.
The miners agreed to arbitration, but when the owners refused, the president went into a tirade. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution, he threatened to have the U.S. Army seize the coal mines and operate them with soldiers. The owners, brutalized by the chief executive, backed down. The following March, the workers received a pay raise.
Roosevelt was not only interested in grabbing U.S. property; he also turned his bullying ways abroad. In 1902, U.S. negotiators attempted to draw a treaty with Colombia for rights to construct a canal across Panama, which then was a province of Colombia. The Colombian senate, however, rejected the treaty, sending Roosevelt into a rage. Under the aegis of the U.S., a group of Panamanians declared a new breakaway republic, and Roosevelt sent gunboats to protect its "independence." Two weeks later, the U.S. government recognized the new "nation," and shortly thereafter, digging on the socialist Panama Canal began at tremendous taxpayer expense.
After winning the election in 1904, Roosevelt became even more aggressive in attempting to establish the progressive regulatory agenda, and one of his first targets was the meat packing industry. At the turn of the century, refrigeration was rare, although the interstate meat industry had developed ice-chilled containers for trains and ships to enable companies to ship dressed meats. (Before refrigeration, meat packing companies could only ship live animals, since dressed meats would quickly spoil.)
During the Spanish-American War, meat packers shipped dressed meats to Cuba for distribution to the inland troops. After the meats were unloaded at the ports, the meat packers warned army quartermasters to keep the meat on ice, or else it would spoil. As one would expect, the arrogant quartermasters refused to listen, and sent the meat wagons into the fields. And, as one would also expect, by the time the meat reached the troops, most of the time it was spoiled.
The meat companies were accused of profiteering on rotten meat and attempting to poison the troops. Roosevelt carried this resentment to the presidency and when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, TR had his excuse to act.
Sinclair wrote his book in hopes of converting Americans to socialism, and he found a willing ally in Roosevelt. Although The Jungle was pure fiction, it resonated with the public, which was ready to believe the worst about American companies. Roosevelt, acting in the name of the public interest, ordered an investigation of the meat industry, which was delivered to him in secret later that year. However, the president refused to release the report, saying only that the contents were "devastating," and he bullied Congress into passing the Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the FDA, an agency which bedevils the country to this day.
It turned out, however, that Roosevelt had other reasons for refusing to release the report. When Sinclair visited the White House in 1906, the president remarked to him that the study contained nothing incriminating. The myth endures, unfortunately, that Roosevelt somehow "reformed" the meat industry.
Roosevelt was an ardent outdoorsman, and his actions to "preserve" American wilds led to more bad policy. He expanded the national forest system, hiring the socialist Gifford Pinchot to carry out his policies. Like other progressives, TR believed that resource markets were wasteful, and that the only way to ensure future resources was for government to take ownership and slowly dole them out over time. At the same time, he sanctioned the building of numerous dams in the West which were of questionable value (but brought him popularity with western interest groups). Also popular with timber interests were the national parks, which lessened the competition.
Unpopular with the conservatives in the Republican Party, Roosevelt did not run for another term in 1908, instead endorsing William Howard Taft. Soon after the election, TR went to Africa for an extended hunt, with his U.S. detractors wishing "health to the lions." When he returned home a year later, congressional progressives, who were shunned by Taft, sought out Roosevelt, who decided to run again for president in 1912. When he did not receive the Republican nomination, he ran as an independent on the "Bull Moose" ticket.
Free of his conservative shackles, Roosevelt ran as a radical progressive, calling for even more government intervention into the economy and championing the income tax. There was little, if any, difference between the Roosevelt platform and that of the socialist Eugene Debs.
While TR didn't win the election, his entry virtually guaranteed that Woodrow Wilson would occupy the White House, a presidency that saw the creation of the Federal Reserve, the implementation of the income tax, the direct election of senators, a blow against federalism, and, finally, America's invasion of Europe in World War I. Roosevelt's complaint against Wilson was that he didn't bring America into one of the most disastrous wars in history soon enough.
In fact, TR was so anxious to fight that he sought to form his own regiment, a scheme that Wilson forbade. But while Roosevelt was not able to be an active soldier in the war, his son, Quentin, volunteered. In 1918, his plane was shot down over France and he was killed. Roosevelt never recovered from the loss of his son in a war he had promoted.-------------
FURTHER READING: Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 106-22.
although he should be lavishly praised for wrecking the reform party
It'll be his Hillary's health care disaster.. and the GOP congress will save him from it.. I don't know what Bush is doing besides pissing off the entire GOP base with this.
He was too left for New York and that is surely too left. He was popular with the media. At least as popular as Clinton. The New York republicans wanted him out of the office of Governor. So they pushed him for vice president. They got it for him. As FDR's Vice President said the Vice presidency is not worth a warm pitcher of spit, and they felt that as Vice President rather than governor of New York Teddy could do no harm.
After the election Teddy was of course Vice President. He was in a postion where he could do no harm. Then the President got killed and Teddy became the president. There was much knashing of teeth in New York. The man Republicans did not want to be Governor became President. In many respects Teddy was a John McCain. He had no loyalty, he was not very smart, and the media loved him. The media did all it could to elect him and polish his immage. For the leftists in the media he was better than a leftist Democrat. The left supported him and the loyalty of the Republicans ensured he could do things no Democrat Liberal could do. That is why he is on Mt. Rushmore.
Teddy started of two crusades. The first was to increase the power of government. He did that by starting the first, yes I said the first, quasi-judicial agency. It was the Food and Drug Administration. It was the first time a single government body could make "rules" with the force of law. It was also able to accuse citizens of breaking those rules with the force of law. It could also try the citizens for breaking the rules with the force of law. It could find them guilty and assess penalites. Teddy took away a huge freedom. That was the people who made the laws could not enforce them. The people that enforced the laws could not try the people they accused. And the accused had ther right to be tried by his fellow citizens. Teddy sent all those protections out the windows. People bought it because the government only was going after big companies. TEddy assured people that it would never regulate, and go after us. You can bet your BATF he knew better.
It was the first time in our history that a single government entity could be legislature, cop, judge and jury. It was a huge loss of freedom. Franklin D. Roosevelt used it as the blueprint for his massive take over of power by the executive branch of government.
Teddy was very anti-business. He took on Standard oil for "bundling" its refineries with its oil wells and service stations. Teddy broke Standard Oil up setting up its eventual acquisistion by a foreign company.
Teddies anti free trade resulted in a huge portion of our oil industry ending up in foreign hands. You can thank Teddy that most of what was Standard Oil is now BRITISH PETROLEUM. You pay for that at the pump every time you get gasoline. Government control of drilling, refining, and selling makes sure you pay big time. The next time you buy gasoline be sure to say, "Thanks Teddy"
People that say protecionism and anti business results in puting America First ought to try to buy gasoline. BP and Shell have a bigger percentage of our oil buisness than ever did Rockefeller's Standard Oil. And the liberal polices of Teddy Roosevelt continued for half a century made our companies ripe for takeover by foreign nationals.
The government got in the business of government control of the Auto industry. They bailed out Chrysler. Now Chrysler is a German company. Our attempts at sticking it to big companies will soon see to it that Ford becomes a Japanese company. Then only GM will be left under American control.
Every time we have increased government control of trade more of our economy goes overseas. If we limited amercian trade to just the US. Us companies would just move overseas and leave subsids here to compete in the US market. The bosses would live and be citizens of foreign nations. Everything would end up being owned in Europe or Asia. Most of it would be in Asia.
Oil, Autos, are nearly lost and with the attacks on Microsoft we will no doubt loose control of the software industy too. The rest of the world would like to force us back into a nation consisteing of poor dirt farmers. If we get out of the worlds business they will certainly get their way.
People who think free trade is bad for the United States always think cheap labor is the reason we could not compete. But labor is not the big cost of manufacturing. It has not been since mass production came in about a hundred years ago. In very few industries is the price of labor even a factor. For example when Henry Ford had 90 percent of the worlds car business he was able to turn out 100 cars per year per employee. Back then his workers worked 6 days a week and were paid 30 dollars a week. Since he produced two cars a week per employee he had 3 days labor in each car.
The new Cadillac plant in Michigan turns out 100 cars per employee per year. That means the labor cost of a new Caddie is a half weeks wages for one employee. If each employee is paid 100 grand a year, then they have 1000 dollars labor in each caddie. That means if the price of labor was cut ot zero the price of a caddie would drop 1,000 dollars. With Zero labor cost the price of a Caddie would only drop from about 40 thousand to 39. And that assumes that GM is paying 100 grand a year per employee. If GM had slave labor and did not even feed, house, or clothe their slaves, it would only cut the cost of a new caddie by 2.5 percent.
Of course there is no such thing as free labor. Even slaves have to be clothed, housed, and fed. Plus if GM built the cars in China with 20 cent an hour labor, they would still have to ship the finished cars to the U.S. That costs at least 500 bucks. If they ship any parts over there to assemble, then it could easily cost as much to produce a car in china and sell it here, as it does to stay here and pay each worker 100 grand a year. I used the car industry, but you can use almost any manufactured product and get the same result.
Their are only two reasons to move a plant overseas. They are government regulation and taxes. Those are two powerful reaons; And the anti-free traders want to put government in control of businesses. Regulate who they can sell to, and who they can buy from, is a prescription for third world poverty.
You hear the talk about our taxes are lower than Europe. But we are not losing jobs to Europe. We are losing them to low tax and low regulation nations. It has almost nothing to do with the price of labor.
The NWO types know that if they are to win the United States must be down graded as the world's only superpower. They have to make us poor. The best way to do that is to take us out of the worlds market place. That takes a three fold attack. They must regulate our industries so they can't compete. It is no coincidence that both Europe and the US government are attacking Microsoft. MS bring in big bucks from all over the world. The socialists have to stop that. Rich nations with a prosperous population are hard to control. Rich nations with poor people are easy for the powers to contol. They regulate by screaming safety. But the real reason is to make the people poor and powerless.
One course of action to destory us is to regulate oil drilling and refining until we destory our economy with the cost of fuel. It helps if other nations own the big oil companies and we don't allow drilling or the building of refineries. And just why would big oil companies not owned by Amercians have any desire to reduce what we pay for oil. YOu can thank Teddy and those that followed in his foot steps for that. You can thank the fools that thing he is a national hero too.
The next step for those who would own us is to take us out of the worlds markets. They cannot beat us, so they try to get us to beat ourselves. Free trade has been the heart of the success of every prosperous nation that has ever existed. The Greek Empire became rich becuase of trade. The same is true for the Roman empire. The Dutch and Spansish became world powers based on trade with the far east.
And the Sun never set on the Bittish Empire that was based on world trade. Britiania rules the waves was a way of saying Brittian ruled world trade.
Of course Brittain pulled back. The leftists who took over after World War II made Brittian into a non factor in world trade. They are far poorer than they were.
Since World War II Japan has risen from Nuclear destruction and defeat to became a world power based on world wide trade.
The idiots that want to limit trade as many South Amercian and African nations do, would make us as poor as they are.
But his fees for wrecking it were fantastic. He got 8 million of our tax dollars and had his sister Bay skim off about 1.5 million in agency fees.
It beats working.
and, it was the last 8 mill that will ever go to the deformed party and its assorted know-nothing perotistas and brigadiers, or to any goofball attempted interloper from the natural law party, so i consider it money well spent
i was hoping that consultancy and ad fee skimming from the 8 mill would enable and inspire both of them to just disappear, but i've seen both on tv in the last two weeks
pat was on fox to yap about mexico and immigration, and within 30 seconds he was whining about manufacturing jobs and mexican trucks
years ago, i agreed with most of the non-economic things he had to say, now, i just find him boring and embarrassing
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.