[Op-Ed:] Theodore Roosevelt Was No Conservative

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 2008-12-27 | Ronald J. Pestritto

[rabscuttle385]

We know that Barack Obama and his allies identify themselves as "progressives," and that they aim to implement the big-government liberalism that originated in America's Progressive Era and was consummated in the New Deal. What remains a mystery is why some conservatives want to claim this progressive identity as their own -- particularly as it was manifested by Theodore Roosevelt.

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange because, if we want to understand where in the American political tradition the idea of unlimited, redistributive government came from, we need look no further than to Roosevelt and others who shared his outlook.

Progressives of both parties, including Roosevelt, were the original big-government liberals. They understood full well that the greatest obstacle to their schemes of social justice and equality of material condition was the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written and understood: as creating a national government of limited, enumerated powers that was dedicated to securing the individual natural rights of its citizens, especially liberty of contract and private property.

[rabscuttle385]

Theodore Roosevelt...the original RINO.

[wastedyears]

From what I remember, his major blemish was wanting to socialize health care.

[Mr. Mojo]

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain....

I'd laugh if the situation weren't so pathetic.

[rabscuttle385]

I'd laugh if the situation weren't so pathetic.

Sigh. McCain is NOT! a conservative.

[rabscuttle385]

ping

[Incorrigible]

“We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.”
— Teddy Roosevelt
— Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913

[dalereed]

The first environmentalisr/socialist whacko!

[Mr. Mojo]

Preachin' to the choir.

The globalists at the WSJ actually fancy themselves (and their political allies like McCain) conservatives. Strange, but true.

[WestSylvanian]

Jonah Goldberg in his book on fascism identifies its origins with the thinking of progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. They firmly believed that government should use the full extent of its power to bring about social change. Why Republicans want to identify with Teddy Roosevelt is beyond me. And George Bush is certainly an heir to Woodrow Wilson’s nutty foreign policy notions.

[tflabo]

I’ll take TR over most of these political goons we have roaming the halls of DC nowadays. Remember though that in his era corporate big business was rather harsh to the workers. Now the coin is totally flipped as Unions are the bloodsuckers killing off business production.

[mamelukesabre]

They are being a little too harsh on ole teddy.

[stevem]

This may be the result of my fuzzy memory, but wasn’t the New Deal largely the Bull Moose Party Platform?

[arthurus]

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange

It is a fact but it is not strange except the part where these fellows are labeled "conservative."

[Arkinsaw]

The first environmentalisr/socialist whacko!

You are insane.

Conservatives believe in the land. We believe in the agrarian tradition. We believe in the yeoman farmer. We believe in the great outdoors. We believe in the individual. Conservatives do not believe in a corporate industrial complex running roughshod over the individual.

All of these things were what Teddy Roosevelt stood for.

Conservatives are completely abandoning environmentalism because it is "their issue". No its not. Conservatives are abandoning corporate and business responsibility because "conservatives are supposed to do that". That is why we end up with unconstitutional business bailouts.

I will take Teddy Roosevelt ANY day over many neo-conservatives.

[fieldmarshaldj]

They’re ripping on your hero. :-P

[BallyBill]

BULL...........y!

[Arkinsaw]

Theodore Roosevelt...the original RINO.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[sionnsar]

conservative politicians such as John McCain

McWho?

[JHL]

I don't buy it. Theodore Roosevelt may have had some blind spots, but he was nowhere near the socialist that modern "progressives" strive to be. Theodore Roosevelt was a man's man, and a fearless leader who had what most politicians today on both sides of the aisle lack -- principles. You have to examine Roosevelt in the context of his times. Businesses were under virtually no regulation when TR came to power. Lack of self-regulation by the business community had resulted in significant abuses which gave workers legitimate reasons to complain and demand government intervention.

Then, as now, the problem was not a lack of government regulation, but an erosion of moral fiber in the business community. TR preached morality from the "bully pulpit," but he backed it up with a strong government hand when necessary. The Republican party today would be blessed to have a man of TR's calibre in its ranks today. McCain isn't fit to tie TR's shoelaces. And for the posters who want to make bedfellows of TR and Woodrow Wilson, I suggest TR's book Fear God and Take Your Own Part in which TR takes Wilson apart limb by limb.

[unkus]

I’m with you.

[LiberConservative]

Butbutbutbut I thought 0bama was the next Lincoln?! I'm so confused!

[Arizona Carolyn]

Duh!!!! When McCain kept bragging he is a TR Conservative I kept thinking if he considered TR a conservative he really didn’t know the meaning of conservative... I think to McCain it is the TR environmentalism that gives him stars in his eyes.

[dalereed]

You cut down trees where they grow, mine where the minerals are, and drill for oil where the oil is the environment be damned!

I hunt and fish and have nevwr encountered a situation where commercial operations have stopped it.

As far as visual effect or air polution I don’t give a damn

[GOP_Raider]

The first environmentalisr/socialist whacko!

Although one could make a pretty good case for John Muir as the original environmentalist wacko.

[Arkinsaw]

You cut down trees where they grow, mine where the minerals are, and drill for oil where the oil is the environment be damned!

I hunt and fish and have nevwr encountered a situation where commercial operations have stopped it.

As far as visual effect or air polution I don’t give a damn

Then you are foolish and not a conservative in the traditional American sense.

Conservatives stand astride history and say stop....or at least slow down.

Somehow people have been convinced that now conservatism means growth and expansion at all costs and unrestrained modernism. That is not conservatism.

[Carry_Okie]

Theodore Roosevelt...the original RINO.

TR was the original corporate crook. The "trust-busting" he did was at the bidding of J.P. Morgan.

[Carry_Okie]

Conservatives believe in the land. We believe in the agrarian tradition. We believe in the yeoman farmer. We believe in the great outdoors. We believe in the individual. Conservatives do not believe in a corporate industrial complex running roughshod over the individual.

You have a lot to learn about TR. The National Parks are an ecological disaster. "Pure food and drugs" have become a crooked racket. TR's selective "trust busting" pleased J.P. Morgan to no end. He was a socialist crook in the tradition of Nixon.

[The Duke]

The difference between Teddy and modern liberals is that Teddy was sincere and altruistic, while modern liberals are insincere and totally self-serving.

Any similarity is inconsequential.

[Arkinsaw]

You have a lot to learn about TR. The National Parks are an ecological disaster. "Pure food and drugs" have become a crooked racket. TR's selective "trust busting" pleased J.P. Morgan to no end. He was a socialist crook in the tradition of Nixon.

You are blaming Theodore Roosevelt for the actions of later politicians and judging Roosevelt's environmentalism by modern environmentalism.

Conservatives have a long tradition of "preservation". Preservation of traditional values. Preservation of human life. Preservation of the land. Preservation of the Constitution. Preservation of our sovereignty. Preservation of our rights.

Preservation has only recently become a "bad word" for neo-conservatism who have hitched their wagons to the J.P. Morgan's of the world and are busy shoveling cash into his boiler.

[SoConPubbie]

Conservatives believe in the land. We believe in the agrarian tradition. We believe in the yeoman farmer. We believe in the great outdoors. We believe in the individual. Conservatives do not believe in a corporate industrial complex running roughshod over the individual.

That is a very narrow interpretation of conservatism.

I like Reagan's version much better than yours:

1. Fiscal Conservatism - Limited Government - Teddy failed on this one big-time.
2. Moral Conservatism - No Abortion and no Homosexual marriage to start with. Not sure where Teddy would fall on thses issues, but he probably would have been on the right side given the mores of his time.
3. Strong Military - Teddy would have been in favor of this as well.


One more thing that must be added to the mix which the Neocons and John McCain regard as poison, no Illegal Alien Amnesty and upholding our current laws.

With the exception, but is it a gigantic exception, Ol' Teddy passes the test.

[Arkinsaw]

With the exception, but is it a gigantic exception, Ol' Teddy passes the test.

You can be a fiscal conservative in favor of limited government, and still be opposed to unrestrained exploitation and the "growth uber alles" economic concept.

When you have corporatism running roughshod over the individual, do you allow the individual and his rights to be devoured because you believe government should have no power to prevent it? Does it really matter which entity devours your rights?

The fundamental purpose of an American government is as a tool for the people to defend their liberties. That's it. That is the whole charter. Even so, we restrict and limit government power in order to prevent it from trampling individual rights in the name of saving them.

I do not have a generic overall answer to this inherent contradiction.

The only thing I can do is judge who is the biggest threat to individual liberty on a case by case basis. I cannot say that corporatism and unrestrained growth is never the threat, and government always is.

For instance, the concept we conservatives recently fought against imminent domain for business. Business wanted to be able to seize property of individual citizens under imminent domain because their mall would "benefit the community" more than the private homes. Collectivism over individualism (and over property rights) In one case government power colluded with business against individual property rights....and on the other hand conservatives used the power of government in some states to prevent these actions. Government power is not always bad, it depends on how it is used and what it is used for. It is a chained monster, that we are advised to carefully use to protect our liberties.

Some conservatives seem to believe that any government power is bad. It is not. Government power is GOOD when it is used to protect and enhance liberty. That is part of the reason the founders instituted the government and delegated it powers....and also why they limited it.

[Tai_Chung]

Teddy would never have given up the Panama Canal!

[SoConPubbie]

I have no differences with the ideaology you are expressing, only the idea that Teddy Roosevelt was a good conservative.

Teddy, like other posters have pointed out, was not afraid to use the government to force through his policies in a non-limited government fashion.

It is no small co-incidence that a RINO like McCain tried to compare himself to Teddy Roosevelt.

[SoConPubbie]

The only thing I can do is judge who is the biggest threat to individual liberty on a case by case basis. I cannot say that corporatism and unrestrained growth is never the threat, and government always is.

I alter my previous post with this one caveat:

Reagan and the founders would most assuredly disagree with your idea concerning the threat of government outside the limited powers the founders proposed for the government.

[JCG]

I’ll take TR over most of these political goons we have roaming the halls of DC nowadays.

Hell, JFK is starting to look pretty good when compared with this bunch.

----

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

[Arguendo]

They lean in the classical liberal direction, meaning they focus more on the free market than traditional/local/agrarian values as truer “conservatives” might be said to. Though in that sense the Republican Party (and our country, for that matter) has never really been “conservative” and only moderately classically liberal.

[Enchante]

George W. Bush really represents a convergence of the worst of TR and Woodrow Wilson.

I give GW props on some aspects of fighting the WOT etc., he’s better than any Democrat would be on that.

But he is NOT any kind of limited-govt. conservative!!!!!!

GW shares a lot of the naive internationalism of WW with the “progressivism” of both TR and WW.

[familyop]

Agreed. Teddy was a social leftist loonie—a drama queen who pandered to romanticists. He also confiscated enormous tracts of land for the Government. He was an anti-labor “progressive.” He was as out of touch with the realities of common family life as others in his social circles.

[Arkinsaw]

Reagan and the founders would most assuredly disagree with your idea concerning the threat of government outside the limited powers the founders proposed for the government.

The founders certainly were concerned about the FACT that government has a natural tendency to arrogate power unto itself.

Many of the founders, and others later, were also concerned about the power of financial interests to arrogate power unto themselves. Alexander Hamilton was not one of these of course.

I merely put forward the concept that our main interest is the protection of individual liberty against any enemy. We were advised to guard ANY who dare approach that jewel (liberty)....not just government.

For instance, in the (entirely valid) fight to protect copyright and intellectual property, business interests have co-opted our government and used it as a tool to suppress our individual liberty in pursuit of their (valid) goal. It is more valid for us to make use of government power to protect our individual liberties than it is for them to make use of government power to diminish them.

I also use the example of States Rights. The founders were questioned about the tension between State and Federal power. Their answer was that citizens would adhere to that level of government which best protected the individual liberties of themselves and their neighbors and that choice would be the correct one. Citizens would use residual State sovereignty to protect their liberty against federal encroachment, and federal sovereignty to protect against State tyranny. Both Federal and State levels of government power can be BAD....but both can also be used as tools to defend individuals against one another.

I do adhere to the concept of limited government power, and I never discount it. But I understand that limiting government power is not an end unto itself...and that the reason we limit government is to protect our liberties. The protection of our liberties is the real goal.

I think that some conservatives are dogmatic about limited government to the extent that they would allow liberties to go under water if government power were the only means to save it.

Let's face it, even Ronald Reagan, the greatest President in the 20th century, conducted the executive branch in a manner that was far beyond the power delineated in the Constitution and far beyond anything contemplated by the founders. Ronald Reagan was also FORCED to conduct a non-limited government spending policy to rebuild a devastated and neglected military because of a global threat. Even George Washington himself made the determination to use military force against US citizens to enforce Alexander Hamilton's tax. It is not always black and white and dogma does not cover every circumstance.

Limited government is very, very, important and a core Conservative principle. It should never be abandoned. But it is not a goal in itself outside of the idea that we limit government specifically to protect and defend liberty.

Sometimes we use government power to defend liberty against threats other than government, as Reagan did.....and as Bush has done as well.

We should definitely question these uses of government power very carefully and keep the chain on government as tight as possible....but our concept of limited government was not intended to be a rope that binds our hands against other threats against our liberty.

[Wiseghy]

I agree. Sadly TR would not nearly be “pure” enough for conservatives these days.

Neither would Jefferson, for that matter.

Yet, it is men that that vision that the party needs now.

[RedMonqey]

“...conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove”

What a effin belly laugh.

[Arkinsaw]

I agree. Sadly TR would not nearly be “pure” enough for conservatives these days.

I note that, in these days, Liberals are the ones pushing for "limited government" in regard to issues such as Guantanamo Bay, and limiting the government's power to detain and hold ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

This concept of "limited government power" being pushed by liberals is actually a DANGER to Liberty. It coddles the ENEMIES of Liberty.

In this case...fighting for "limited government" is intended to undermine our country, and our Liberty by using the concept to favor of determined enemies of both.

[RedMonqey]

Also Teddy Roosevelt believed in eugenics, as did many big government Progressives .....

[Carry_Okie]

You are blaming Theodore Roosevelt for the actions of later politicians and judging Roosevelt's environmentalism by modern environmentalism.

No. I am blaming him for opening an unconstitutional door via an abuse of power that had entirely predictable consequences, including damage to the environment.

Conservatives have a long tradition of "preservation". Preservation of traditional values. Preservation of human life. Preservation of the land. Preservation of the Constitution. Preservation of our sovereignty. Preservation of our rights.

Oh how romantic. The problem with your little storybook encapsulation is that it's totally bogus. Preserving land kills it. That is why the parks are dying. It is based upon a false premise: that humans are somehow distinct from the wild and not responsible for managing it. The reality is that the wild cannot and has never functioned without humans. As to sovereignty, it was TR who built a navy that trashed national sovereignty, asserting an American empire. In doing so, he helped rack up enough debt that we got the Federal Reserve out of the deal. TR witlessly trashed private property rights by socializing risks. In building regulatory government he killed the insurance industry's innate interest in managing risk. He also build a corrupt interest in defining regulations preferentially, which is what got us into the war we are now sirrah. As to the Constitution, he trashed with such powers.

Preservation has only recently become a "bad word" for neo-conservatism who have hitched their wagons to the J.P. Morgan's of the world and are busy shoveling cash into his boiler.

You have a lot to learn.

[cherry]

I’ll take TR any day ......he was a strong family man of morals and character....that alone made him a great man when we see the weaklings running things now...

[AmericanGirlRising]

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange

Kristol and Rove are opportunists who gain wealth and clout from the Washington DC machine.

It's laughable that I deride Chicago Machine Politics when Washington DC politics have assumed the same role, function, and funding.

[cherry]

next the feeble minded here will tell us that Abaham Lincoln was a Rino.....gee, intervening in states rights with all that slavery and all...what a piker!

good men do what they need to do at the time....as did Lincoln and TR...Dubya did a couple of things he needed to do but sadly did a lot of things he had no business in doing....

[Carry_Okie]

next the feeble minded here will tell us that Abaham Lincoln was a Rino.....gee, intervening in states rights with all that slavery and all...what a piker!

Here you go: Lincoln was a corporate lawyer who made his name rigging eminent domain deals on behalf of private barge companies.

[SMCC1]

It seems Coolidge has been forgotten by modern Republicans. Reagan is understandably brought up all of the time. TR a lot as well. Calvin Coolidge should be brought up more.

[Carry_Okie]

good men do what they need to do at the time.... as did Lincoln and TR...

And bad men use chimeral ends to justify unconstitutional means. Had the North paid just compensation for slaves, it would have been cheaper than a war, but then, that wasn't what the war was about anyway: The principal reason was the uneven distribution of the tax burden via tariffs, but I don't suspect that reality would deter your infatuation with spin.

Dubya did a couple of things he needed to do but sadly did a lot of things he had no business in doing....

"He can win."