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.
Not Teddy, Franklin.
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.
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?
Never judge historical figures by today’s standards.
TEDDY Roosevelt was the first president to suggest national health care!
He WAS, very definitely, a progressive and thus hostile to our founding ideals!
Teddy, too.
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.
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
“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
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.
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.
The quote was Teddy.
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.
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.
Yes, and he called it Compassionate Conservatism. Ugh.
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.
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.
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.
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.