Posted on 04/13/2024 9:04:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Over the course of the last week, some of President Trump’s most ardent and vocal online supporters have engaged in a bit of cognitive dissonance, praising the former president for his foresight and wisdom in calling for a federalist solution to one of the nation’s most intractable problems while simultaneously singing the praises of the one man who likely did more than any other American to crush the nation’s federalist history and culture.
Specifically, President Trump called for the question of abortion to be handled by the states, for the federal government to relinquish its power over the issue and enable government at a level closer to the people to enact their wishes. This solution is problematic for a variety of reasons, including, most notably, the Founders’ declaration that “Governments are instituted among Men” to secure the rights embodied in the “self-evident” truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That notwithstanding, Trump is almost certainly correct in arguing for a return to federalism to address many of the country’s most pressing and divisive issues. Not only was this the course agreed upon at the nation’s founding, but it also seems likely to be a sagacious solution to the ever-increasing threats posed by institutional “bigness”: Big Government, Big Business, Big Tech, Big Finance, etc. The growth of the federal state and the centralization of authority consequent to it—as well as the growth of other institutions that are empowered by the federal state’s reach—have been almost inarguably destructive to every aspect of the nation’s well-being.
As the great Russell Kirk put it, “All those gifts of variety, contrast, competition, communal pride and sympathetic association that characterize man at his manliest are menaced by the ascendancy of the omnicompetent state of modern times….”
It is ironic, then, that while Trump was out defending the virtues of federalism and while his supporters were praising him for doing so, many of those same supporters were also singing the praises of the nation’s 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt. While it is true that Roosevelt served in office as a Republican, that’s not to say that he was, in any way, a conservative. There is a reason, after all, that the above-mentioned Russell Kirk, who was born three months before Roosevelt died, is considered the “godfather of American conservatism.”
Conservatism as a coherent force did not really exist in American politics before the 1950s. Teddy Roosevelt, for his part, was, quite literally, a Progressive. His famous third-party run for the presidency in 1912 was under the banner of the Progressive Party. Temperamentally and ideologically, he had a great deal more in common with his distant cousin, Franklin, than he did with Ronald Reagan or any conservatives of the modern era.
In truth, Roosevelt is one of the three people in American politics most responsible for laying the foundation for the “omnicompetent” federal state—along with Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly.
When he was inaugurated, after the assassination and death of President McKinley, Roosevelt promised that he would “go slow” with his reform agenda—largely since no one had voted for it—but he couldn’t help himself. Within months, he was railing against “the rich,” complaining endlessly about “the trusts,” and insisting that it was his responsibility to fix the faults in the Founders’ Constitution.
In his first annual message to the nation, Roosevelt derided the Constitution and the federalism so prized by its framers, declaring that they had been woefully mistaken when they “accepted as a matter of course that the several States were the proper authorities to regulate, so far as was then necessary, the comparatively insignificant and strictly localized corporate bodies of the day.” He forgave the Founders personally (and ever so graciously) but nevertheless insisted that “The conditions today are wholly different” than they were in 1788, “and wholly different action is called for.” “The old laws and the old customs, which had almost the binding force of law,” he continued, were no longer sufficient “to regulate the accumulation and distribution of wealth.”
Most tellingly, he suggested that fate had empowered him to act on the people’s “sincere conviction that combination and concentration should be, not prohibited, but supervised and within reasonable limits controlled; and in my judgment, this conviction is right.” He insisted that he would, in other words, have to make himself—and the government more broadly—the partner of American business to see that the concentration of wealth was properly used to advance the general welfare.
These then are Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive legacies: a belief in the inadequacy of the Constitution, a belief that government can and should be the arbiter of economic success (opening the door to corporatism), and the inauguration of the nation’s perpetual and ongoing class war, in which “the rich” and “the industrialists” (i.e., businessmen) are deemed enemies of the people.
It is worth noting that whatever one thinks of Roosevelt, his ideology, or his reforms, the necessity of his crusade was questionable at best. Despite the Panic of 1893 and the subsequent depression, the American Gross National Product (GNP) grew at a roughly 4.5% rate from 1890-1907. During much of the same period, the decade leading up to Roosevelt’s presidency, prices either remained flat or fell (1894, -3.7%; 1895, -3.8%). The “trusts” may have been a social and political issue for the nation but were hardly an economic concern. One would be hard-pressed to make the case that these so-called enemies of the people were enemies of anyone other than Roosevelt himself.
The ongoing fascination of some segments of the political right with Theodore Roosevelt is honestly quite baffling. The late Senator John McCain also idealized Roosevelt, aligning himself with the image of the “Bull Moose.” The Bull Moose, of course, was the official mascot of the Progressive Party, and the “Bull Moose Party” was just a nickname for the Progressives.
In short, President Trump’s supporters should be glad and pleased that their guy has embraced federalism, but they should also be careful not to saddle him with the legacy of a man who did everything in his power to undermine the Constitution and its federalist spirit. Not only are the positions at odds with one another, but the latter bodes ill for his endeavor to Make America Great Again.
Excellent argument
Typical anti trump presentation
Zero substance
I think it is a mistake to lump Theodore Roosevelt "progressivism" in with modern "progressivism." There are distinct differences between what Teddy did and what modern liberals do.
The Anti-trust stuff he did was necessary. He did a lot of things that needed to be done in way of separating corporations from having so much influence on government, which is pretty much the opposite of what modern liberals do.
Was he though? He was more of a figurehead. You're on firmer ground with Schumer and Pelosi (and Harry Reid).
TR was a different time and circumstances.
He wasn’t wrong for his time, he is wrong for ours.
Just like the Robber barons of the late 1800 and early 1900 are vilified, they were essential for the growth of the nation and its ability to survive two world wars.
Yes, Roosevelt in office was different from Roosevelt in his post-presidential years.
I agree with the Founding Fathers who created a VOLUNTARY union of sovereign states based on CONSENT. I gather you disagree with them.
I have long struggled with it, because I liked a lot of the aspects TR tried to project in himself.
He was full of vitality, he was belligerent when I thought he should be, he served with distinction in the military, he wasn't afraid to try new things (although, as one of our fellow Freepers points out in an enjoyable book he wrote William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency, 1909-1913 Roosevelt seemed indifferent to motor vehicles and preferred horses, probably not surprising given his own history)
I always admired him greatly due to his physical activities and seemingly empty reserves of visible fear, and he wasn't just hot air. He did a lot of extraordinary things in that respect. His trip to the Amazon basin at the age of 54 as outlined in the book The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey is not made up or contrived.
He actually undertook that journey into a completely unexplored area of the Amazon, and nearly lost his life in the process. But that was part of who he was.
But as my journey away from what my teachers (and fans of Theodore Roosevelt and guardians of his legacy) wanted me to hear, I began to examine his record, and I didn't like his meddling in corporate or cultural affairs. He became less attractive to me, and Presidents such as Calvin Coolidge became far more attractive to me. Today, it would not even be a contest if it were between Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt. I would take Calvin Coolidge 100% of the time, hands down.
As a Chief Executive, I would trust Coolidge to learn how to navigate properly and make the right decisions in an area many might think Theodore Roosevelt would be superior.
But in economic and corporate manners, I want someone like Coolidge, and would today trust him to make sound, calm decisions in matters of foreign affairs or war.
I feel the same way. Both of those Presidents were like wrecking balls on America, and the ripples they created back then have become tsunamis today.
RE: I gather you disagree with them.
I don’t exactly disagree, but the question of whether it was worth seceding and dissolving the USA vs fighting a war to preserve it is a complex one.
The first question I need an answer to is this — Was there a referendum in each of the southern states asking citizens of these states if they really want to secede?
Ultimately, whether the Civil War was worth the cost is a matter of historical interpretation and individual values. Here are some additional factors to consider:
The Potential Spread of Slavery: Without the war, slavery might have continued to expand and become more entrenched in the South.
The Impact on Democracy: Allowing secession could have set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to the fracturing of the nation along other lines in the future. The precedent set would have probably eventually created individual countries like the Republic of New Jersey or the Republic of Massachusetts, etc. depending on the prevailing popular sentiments.
I’m not sure that this is what the framers of our constitution had in mind for the United States of America.
I just want to find out if the Union we still call the United States of America is in danger of dissolving anytime soon. There are several people who think like you that I’ve encountered, even in FR.
My gut feeling is TODAY at least, despite the corruption and increasing intrusion of Washington DC on the affairs of the states, the sentiment for secession is not as strong as it was in the 1860s.
What I do believe is , like the peaceful division of Czechoslovakia or the near division of Spain and Catalonia, or the near secession of Quebec from Canada, the separation of ANY state in the union should be done via PEACEFUL and VOLUNTARY referendum instead of by force.
I think this was what the founders had in mind. The best evidence of that is the VOLUNTARY joining of each state to the union.
There was either a referendum as in the case of Virginia (and Tennessee IIRC?) or that was a statewide convention on the issue to which the people of the state elected representatives - which mirrors how they ratified the US Constitution in the first place. Either way, secession was done democratically in each state. It reflected the democratically expressed will of the people in each.
Ultimately, whether the Civil War was worth the cost is a matter of historical interpretation and individual values. Here are some additional factors to consider:
The Potential Spread of Slavery: Without the war, slavery might have continued to expand and become more entrenched in the South.
It wouldn't have spread as it was simply not economically viable in the arid West. Slavery was dying throughout the Western world at the time. It was still in the process of slowly dying in the North and was in the early stages of dying in the South as industrialization spread.
The Impact on Democracy: Allowing secession could have set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to the fracturing of the nation along other lines in the future. The precedent set would have probably eventually created individual countries like the Republic of New Jersey or the Republic of Massachusetts, etc. depending on the prevailing popular sentiments.
Why was it any more dangerous than the 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire 80 years earlier? You say other states might have seceded in the future. My response is, the threat of secession would have restrained the federal government.....would have caused it to be less greedy, less rapacious and less out to screw certain states over to benefit others so as to avoid having more states secede. That would have been a very good thing. Lincoln in 1848 waxed poetic about secession when he was in the US House of Representatives and called it "a principle to liberate the world" for this reason.
I’m not sure that this is what the framers of our constitution had in mind for the United States of America.
Of course they did. There are statements from Thomas Jefferson and others in support of it. Notice how they did not prevent secession anywhere in the US Constitution. In the federalist papers, Madison said the union was voluntary and that each state was bound only by its own "voluntary act" (in ratifying the US Constitution). These people had just seceded from the British Empire 8 years earlier after all.
I just want to find out if the Union we still call the United States of America is in danger of dissolving anytime soon. There are several people who think like you that I’ve encountered, even in FR.
The biggest mistake the Southern states ever made IMO was entering into a union with New England. If New England and the Left Coast wanted to go their separate way, I'd celebrate.
My gut feeling is TODAY at least, despite the corruption and increasing intrusion of Washington DC on the affairs of the states, the sentiment for secession is not as strong as it was in the 1860s.
Not yet but we're getting there step by step.
What I do believe is , like the peaceful division of Czechoslovakia or the near division of Spain and Catalonia, or the near secession of Quebec from Canada, the separation of ANY state in the union should be done via PEACEFUL and VOLUNTARY referendum instead of by force.
Amen. Peaceful secession is exactly what the Southern states wanted and (rightfully) thought their right as sovereign states. If Vermont or Hawaii or Massachusetts, etc want to go, I'm all in favor of letting them go.
I think this was what the founders had in mind. The best evidence of that is the VOLUNTARY joining of each state to the union.
Bingo. There were no federal income taxes and no real federal army to speak of. Needless to say there were no federal agencies - just the post office. Look at the greedy, corrupt, oppressive monstrosity we have now.
“He had no concept for what importing exotic species would do to the foundations of the food chain and as a culture, we still don’t.”
I can give him a pass for that then.
It’s the big government stuff. I have no toleration on that. No free passes for statism.
Thank you for the PDFs.
Do let me know what you think.
There is a bigger picture to this.
“I believe that, on balance, few conservatives today would oppose Teddy Roosevelt’s four signature accomplishments”
The McCain/McConnell wing and the Establishment appear to be on the decline to me. It’ll be a long time before they are gone, but I think we’re going in the correct direction. Not everybody who claims to be a conservative is one.
“(1) antitrust legislation”
I didn’t used to oppose those things myself - until I realized the real reasons TR did all of that, the “progressive” reasons. It was nothing more than anti-capitalism with new clothes.
But we all know better, the emperor has no clothes.
“(2) the establishment of the national park system”
Seeing the abusive nature of the government lands divisions, this isn’t nearly as popular as you might be apt to believe.
At the end of the day, even with conservatives who “find this popular”, if you ask the point blank question “is it constitutionally permitted” then it doesn’t matter the popularity.
It is still flatly unconstitutional. No park is popular enough to put our Constitutional parchment in the paper shredder. We are on an open forum, we could ask open wide if you like in a new discussion. “Do you support the national parks anyways in spite of their clear unconstutionality”
You’ll get more no’s than yes’s.
The parks would be just fine if they were returned to the states just as Roe/abortion has been returned to the states. There is. No. Need. for tyrannical government on the parks.
“(3) the development of the US Navy into a modern force”
Foreign affairs is TR’s only saving grace. Domestically, it was disaster after disaster.
“(4), anti-corruption legislation that helped remedy abuses that had put Congress and state legislatures at the service of the highest bidder.”
Come full circle, no, I don’t think many would say that. What did all of the progressive hoopla amount to? They used taxpayer money to bribe each other.
I won’t forget the Cornhusker Kickback, and I bet you don’t either. All of that was in the age of so called “progressive” reform - we now live with all of this junk. It didn’t work. It’s been a failure. Just like the 17th amendment. That didn’t make a thing better. It made everything worse. That’s what progressivism does.
Progressivism makes everything worse.
The only time progressivism can be said to be a good thing is when it’s undoing earlier progressive failures, perhaps the most notable being prohibition. All that did was give us the mob. No thanks to the progressive “social gospel” sect having their way.
“the fruits of Progressivism lets a now pejorative label control our understanding of history”
It’s not.
When a guy comes around and says “I am a progressive” I take him at his word. He is a progressive. Especially since the record matches.
Graduated tax, price controls, support of global government, executive orders coming out of every which way, and on and on.
There’s no labeling. He was all social justice, all the time, and said so.
It can only be a mistake if there’s no direct line.
But there is a direct line. So the facts dictate our opinions. At least, they dictate mine.
Yes, Obama was a big time fighter. He was an Alinskyite. If anything, his handlers held him back.
Anybody who’s a hardcore Alinskyite is a fighter. It is always a mistake to underestimate an Alinskyite.
What might Trump do?
vs.
What will the DoJ and FBI, FISA, DHS, CIA continue to do?
- - -
I would be glad to. So that I may have some direction, Just because there is a lot here. In reference to the conservationist movement/TR.
Perhaps, page 4? (I’m making this number up) Where should I focus?
Excellent post.
Outstanding post!
TR didn’t want to break up trusts, he wanted the Government to regulate them. He was a Hamiltonian.
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.