Liberal media are desperate to get you to believe the Trump - Roosevelt narrative. But who really buys this kabuki theater anyways?

For many years, Rush Limbaugh was fond of the phrase "phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock'n roller." He used this often times as descriptors for people, but he also used it for events and other things.

This storyline about Trump and Theodore Roosevelt? That's definitely phony baloney with a very strong helping of plastic bananas. Check out this clowning article from The Atlantic: The Wannabe Tough-Guy Presidency

Ok, here's how you can sum up the Theodore Roosevelt Presidency, in three simple words. This is as simple as it gets. You ready?

That's it. And it's accurate as heck too. Destroying the U.S. Constitution. That's what Theodore Roosevelt was all about during his tenure. But what about the Trump's first term? This is as simple as it gets. You ready?

Now you see why I call the whole thing kabuki theater. You can see what's clowning about this ridiculous premise that they are proposing. Now I could go further, I could summarize the first Trump presidency by saying "he did what was best for the people." See, that's pretty good. But what about Theodore Roosevelt? Here's what's accurate to say, "he did what was best for the government". Again we run head-long into why Trump Roosevelt comparisons are hype.

A lot of ne'er-do-wells will quickly retort that I'm just jaded, or have crooked agenda of some kind. Alright, how about a test then. During the Trump Presidency, one of the defining moments was the response to COVID-19. What did Trump do? Did he listen to all of the media begging and begging him to centralize power in the government and take total dominion? Or did he rely on federalism and make sure the states did the best they could to deal with the situation?

Trump chose federalism. Contrast this with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt hated federalism, he hated the states and said so publicly, and if he had a COVID he would've loved it and would've used it to expand the bureaucracy. Am I making that up? No, I'm really not. Roosevelt had a crisis on his hands, one that has certain similarities to COVID. It wasn't a pandemic, it was food. Tampering with people's health or tampering with people's food is a good way to freak people out, and clearly, food and health are closely related.

So what happened at the outset of the publication of a book titled "The Jungle"? Did Theodore Roosevelt rely on the genius of federalism? Did Theodore Roosevelt rely on the goodness of the individual states? Did he stand firm to defend the honor of the U.S. Constitution?

Nope. You know what he did. Roosevelt expanded the bureaucracy. The FDA was born out of a crisis, and as you know progressives see a crisis as a terrible thing to waste.

If having a crisis in food caused Roosevelt to expand the bureaucracy, a crisis of a pandemic would've resulted in the same. Never ending bureaucracy. That's just how progressives think. That's just the way progressives are wired. It's a brain defect, they can't help themselves but to make the size and scope of the federal government larger wherever it can be acceptably grown larger.

But why phony baloney? Why plastic bananas? Well, on the surface, Trump and many presidents have similarities. Trump is energetic, Obama was energetic. Oh, you didn't expect that? See, that's "surface level", it is not a descriptor of any philosophies or proven track record of actual governance. You'll notice, the Atlantic barely scratches the actual four years of Trump's presidency. Now why is that? It's because when you compare a sea urchin to a porcupine, all of the similarities end at the phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock'n roll surface level. These three items do not require deep analysis:

Both men got shot. That doesn't tell me anything about governing philosophy or proven track record.

Both men are/were energetic. Still not seeing anything about governing philosophies.

Both men are from New York. Ok, Atlantic. Really? Please, it doesn't get any more phony baloney, plastic banana surface level than this.

Getting away from the simple surface, the Atlantic article does actually touch on a handful of things from Roosevelt's philosophy, one of which I do find shocking. The Atlantic actually writes this following line which in fact blows up the entire article. It wrote:

Why didn't the elephant in the living room entirely squash the article then? Because facts don't actually matter. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, and Donald Trump has proven to be a progressive defeater. But so what? Why can't we persist the narrative anyways? The kabuki must go on!! The Atlantic admits that Trump is a fan - not of Roosevelt, but of McKinley, and has designs on eliminating the progressive income tax that Roosevelt gave us in favor of more tariffs. But the shocker is that The Atlantic actually puts pen to paper(font to word processor if you really prefer) and admits that Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist.(and Trump is not)

Now, mind you, they don't use that word because they likely view it as a loaded word/phrase. But make no mistake, they admit it. They point out that Roosevelt was very interested and was the original "internationalist" which is actually condescending because I know better. I recorded the speech Roosevelt gave to the Nobel committee where is very succinctly states that it would be a "masterstroke" if the world powers would form a "League of Peace" - a sort of a competitor to the League of Nations which he was not fond of. He supported globalism, he just didn't support Wilson's plan of globalism.

And of course, as you know, Trump doesn't support any kind of any plan at all of globalism and has no plan for globalism of his own ready for the offer. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt who did.

Had Theodore Roosevelt been the 45th President, alive in 2019/2020, he absolutely would've imposed a vaccine mandate and he would've loved every minute of it. Statists are just going to do what statists are known for doing.

But I would like to hear from anybody on this. How does one reconcile that a progressive defeater like Donald Trump is exactly the same in philosophy and governance as a progressive statist like Theodore Roosevelt?

If you only have an interest in the surface level stuff, that phony baloney plastic banana good time rock'n roll content where sea urchins are exactly the same as porcupines(on the surface, they are. Covered with spikes.), well, don't forget. Theodore Roosevelt did shoot a lion.

ProgressingAmerica: "The wording of so many of these sections is so worthless I almost can't reply to them in any substantive way."

Naw, it's only because you have no brain and can't deal in real facts & logic -- all you can do is reduce them to ridiculous caricatures and then wave your hands at them -- saying, "go away".

ProgressingAmerica: "And of course, because some people did something well obviously they are the same.
Proof!"

Go back and read my post #18 again -- notice my conclusion:

Has Trump ever rejected comparisons to Teddy Roosevelt?
Not that I know of."

ProgressingAmerica: "Not even realizing that by including number 11, you canceled out several of your earlier entries.
That's quite comical."

Your words are pure nonsense because the point of #11 is that both TR and DJT reduced Federal spending as a percentage of GDP, even with the major accomplishments I listed.
You should also notice that TR's Federal government was orders of magnitude smaller than Pres. Trump's.
Of course, I'm not blaming Trump for that, simply pointing out that we are talking about very different times.

ProgressingAmerica: "An even bigger problem with this pseudo list is what's missing.
No mention of out of control use of executive orders, no mention of the attempt to nationalize the spelling of words, no mention of price controls, and no consideration of TR's own view of his own policies either."

I get it.
You've got a list of indictments against Teddy Roosevelt, most of which come straight out of our Democrats' playbooks, and you want to ignore the Democrats' equally long list of indictments against Pres. Trump.

I'm saying that both of those Democrats' lists are ridiculous nonsense and reflect nothing more than our brain-fried Democrats' propaganda.

Ignore the propaganda and look at what both men actually did.

For example, take your issue of "price controls" -- both Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump reduced the costs of food and fuel for average Americans.
TR did it through price controls, but over 100 years later Trump knows those don't really work, so instead he encourages increasing supplies -- i.e., "drill baby drill" -- to reduce costs.

"Drill Baby Drill":

Now, if you want to debate Executive Orders, how about if we wait and see what Pres. Trump -- our "Dictator on Day One" -- does on Day One, before we condemn Teddy Roosevelt for being totally out of line?

Let's keep this small for now. That will be better and easier since some people are saying they don't understand.

1: Trust-Busting:

Teddy Roosevelt took on big corporations -- i.e., JP Morgan, Standard Oil, American Tobacco -- that were unfairly abusing the public.
Donald Trump took on big corporations -- Twitter, Facebook, TikTok -- that were unfairly abusing the public.

11: Size and Scope of Federal Government:

Under Teddy Roosevelt, Federal spending fell from 3.6% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP, largely because US GDP had increased by 64%.
Under Donald Trump, Federal spending fell from 23.5% of GDP to 20.5% of GDP (pre-Covid).

This is both a contradiction and a bait and switch. Number 11 is not titled "Federal Spending", it is titled "Size and Scope of the Federal Government".

Theodore Roosevelt is known as the first Trust Buster, meaning this is a government activity nobody did prior to him. That covers both size and scope. Hey, you brought it up so do not complain.

That is a scope he expanded just because he felt like it.

Theodore Roosevelt created the FBI. Just because it didn't have that same name at the moment doesn't change that the organization did not exist prior to 1908 doesn't mean a whole lot, and then there the organization was(the people/offices), later to be renamed. The FBI considers it the FBI. It's the FBI.

The creation of the FBI, according to the FBI(You always like to ignore the FBI's own website) says:

President Theodore Roosevelt Takes Action

It was further asserted that President Roosevelt directed Bonaparte to create an investigative service within the Department of Justice subject to no other department or bureau, which would report to no one except the Attorney General. It is considered thoroughly reliable that this was the incident which resulted in the formation of the Bureau of Investigation of the United States Department of Justice.

You see that word "directed"?

According to the FBI itself, King Teddy I acting unconstitutionally is responsible for the creation of the unconstitutionally existing FBI. It doesn't get any better than that in pointing out this increase in both the size and scope of the federal government while ignoring the bait-and-switch of "oh look at the eye-candy of federal spending". Size and scope. Your words.

The FBI says Theodore Roosevelt is responsible for the creation of the FBI. So, we have learned that Theodore Roosevelt created the FBI. There it is for you. Again.

The later mentioned by you (no need for me to cut/paste) FDA was also a deep state bureaucracy that did not exist.

That is an increase of both the size and the scope of the federal government.

The later mentioned by you National Parks, using massive amounts of executive orders to bypass congress which no other president before him had done, is an increase of both the size and the scope of the federal government.

My personal favorite increase in the size and scope of the federal government, which King Teddy I was terribly proud of, was price controls. In Theodore Roosevelt's "Confession of Faith Before the Progressive National Convention", Roosevelt listed 33 major accomplishments.

Price controls was fourth on the list. Fourth!

Price controls is an increase of both the size and the scope of the federal government.

King Teddy I is the first president in U.S. history to implement price controls in peacetime. There is no doubt that this is an increase of both the size and the scope of the federal government.

Attempted increase

This laughable mention of "11: Size and Scope of Federal Government:" would not be complete without mentioning King Teddy I's attempt to waive his kingly scepter to nationalize the spelling of words. History.com among many other places has the story about this oh-so-constitional presidential action.

In August 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an order from his summer residence in Oyster Bay, New York, that would soon be the talk of Washington—and the world beyond.

Yeah that's right, the Founding Fathers intended for meddling presidents to bet all bent into pretzel shaped formations and get involved with the spelling of words. That's what is most important.

This would have been an increase of the scope of the federal government. But he failed. He tried and failed. The trying part is the important part.

And this is just the omissions on your part and a contradiction that I am getting at here. That's how bad your list of 11 is, here.

Inserting government in places where government has no business being, is a hallmark of the specific ideology of progressivism.

Progressivism included different strands of thought.

It really didn't. You're separating the core from the fluff to make this statement.

All progressives believe in the holiness of a bureaucratic organization(its almost always government) and all progressives believe that experts have a level of supremacy over the masses. TR was no different than any other rotten progressive in this manner.

It is only in the margins where you find different strands of thought. TR found trust busting to be a prime thing to do so he didn't put nearly as much time into a endless maze of triple-letter agencies. He still wanted them, and created several of them. And expanded others as he could. And used them as weapons any time he could. That's progressivism.

All progressives are the same, and the core of their thoughts surround the same thing. Bureaucracy and experts. You can compare House to TR to Wilson to FDR to Obama to Biden and you end up with the same results. Bigger and bigger and bigger government. Now you want to say, in the margins this strand of thought about gay marriage or some other such thing but look at the core. What did Biden do with this strand? Expand government. The whackjob stuff is just fluff. The size of government is the progressive core.

Ever expanding government. No progressive can escape these three simple words. Ever expanding government.

When it comes to the presidency their starting points are different.

Agreed. Some people only know how to look at surface-level stuff though. Trump was from New York, TR was from New York, so therefore they must be the same.

Roosevelt increased the powers of the presidency beyond what earlier presidents made use of. Trump is working with the greater powers that presidents now have.

That's because their philosophies are very different. TR hated the constitution. It's really that simple. Theodore Roosevelt hated the United States Constitution - and in particular, what singular item Theodore Roosevelt hated the most about the United States Constitution more than perhaps any other was its feature of federalism.

See Covid. Trump does not hate the United States Constitution. Trump embraced federalism during Covid. The media begged and begged and begged Trump to centralize more power during Covid and Trump flat refused to grab power.

See or listen to the New Nationalism speech. TR stated as plainly as he could his disdain regarding "squabbling contemptible little commonwealths." TR wanted federal government to DOMINATE in regard to the states, and also the private sector, as he stated as such in his autobiography.

I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce.

You see those words "complete power"? I didn't put that there. That is on page 560. King Teddy I put that there, "complete power."

The entire presidency of Roosevelt can be summarized, and very accurately summarized, and one power grab after the next. Naked, annoying, unconstitutional power grabs. That's King Teddy I.

ProgressingAmerica: "This is both a contradiction and a bait and switch.
Number 11 is not titled "Federal Spending", it is titled "Size and Scope of the Federal Government"."

Size and scope of Federal government, relative to US GDP.
It's well worth noticing that Federal government these days is ten times larger than it was under Teddy Roosevelt, relative to GDP.
It's also worth noticing that TR reduced the size of government, to its lowest levels since the Civil War -- also lower than at any time since then.

So, I "get" it -- you desperately want to blame TR for the crimes of Democrats like Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and LBJ.
I'm saying, that's a mental defect all too common among conservatives, and you really need to get over it.

ProgressingAmerica: "Theodore Roosevelt is known as the first Trust Buster, meaning this is a government activity nobody did prior to him.
That covers both size and scope.
Hey, you brought it up so do not complain.
That is a scope he expanded just because he felt like it."

Federal anti-trust actions did not begin with Teddy Roosevelt.
They began with:

1887 Interstate Commerce Act under Democrat Pres. Grover Cleveland.
1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act under Republican Pres. Benjamin Harrison.
1902 Northern Securities Anti-Trust case prosecuted under Republican Pres. Teddy Roosevelt.

So, by the time of TR's first anti-trust case, laws authorizing Federal actions had been on the books for 15 years.
Roosevelt was the first to use those laws as they were intended, and his actions were confirmed by the US Supreme Court (Northern Securities Co. v. United States) on March 14, 1904.

ProgressingAmerica: "Theodore Roosevelt created the FBI.
Just because it didn't have that same name at the moment doesn't change that the organization did not exist prior to 1908 doesn't mean a whole lot, and then there the organization was(the people/offices), later to be renamed.
The FBI considers it the FBI.
It's the FBI."

Sure, there's no disputing that in July 1908, his last months as president, TR ordered some offices to be rearranged in the Justice Department.
But you want to blame Roosevelt for J. Edgar Hoover, James Comey and everything else corrupted there, and I'm saying that's ludicrous.
TR did nothing more than what he was authorized to do as US Chief Executive.

ProgressingAmerica: "According to the FBI itself, King Teddy I acting unconstitutionally is responsible for the creation of the unconstitutionally existing FBI. "

That's pure nonsense, since the only thing your "King Teddy" did was reorganize some offices within the Department of Justice -- nothing else, not even the name "Bureau of Investigation" (BOI).
TR did not change or increase the funding for those investigators, he simply put them all under one authority, as was his right as US Chief Executive.

Everything else came later -- the name BOI in 1909 and separate Congressional funding in 1910, both under Pres. Taft.
J Edgar Hoover joined the BOI in 1917, then under Democrat Pres. Wilson.

ProgressingAmerica: "My personal favorite increase in the size and scope of the federal government, which King Teddy I was terribly proud of, was price controls.
In Theodore Roosevelt's "Confession of Faith Before the Progressive National Convention", Roosevelt listed 33 major accomplishments.
Price controls was fourth on the list.
Fourth!"

The Hepburn Act of 1906 is 4th on the list, it passed with bipartisan support -- 323-1 in the House and 58-5 in the Senate.
In all, there were several acts of Congress authorizing Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's various actions:

1887 Interstate Commerce Act (ICC)
1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act
1902 Newlands Reclamation Act (funding irrigation projects)
1904 Elkins Act (anti-discrimination in pricing)
1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act
1906 Meat Inspection Act
1906 Antiquities Act (authority to create national monuments & parks)
1906 Hepburn Act ("reasonable and just" railroad rates)
1908 Federal Employers Liability Act (requiring compensation for on-the-job injuries)

None of those acts were ever overturned or declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

ProgressingAmerica: "King Teddy I is the first president in U.S. history to implement price controls in peacetime.
There is no doubt that this is an increase of both the size and the scope of the federal government."

What's true is that Federal non-military employees (including postal workers) increased by 10% from 1900 through 1908.
However, the US population increased by 20% during that period and the US GDP by 64%.
That's why Federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 3.6% under Pres. McKinley to 2.5% under Teddy Roosevelt.

ProgressingAmerica: "This laughable mention of "11: Size and Scope of Federal Government:" would not be complete without mentioning King Teddy I's attempt to waive his kingly scepter to nationalize the spelling of words. "

A laughable episode, perhaps comparable to Pres. Trump's renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America."
In TR's case, as Chief Executive, he instructed the Federal Printing Office to use simplified spellings of 300 words -- about half of which had already been simplified, i.e., "honor" instead of the English "honour".
TR intended to help new Americans learn English, and was following the example of Germany, which had recently simplified and regularized German word spellings -- competitive TR didn't want to let the Germans get ahead of us!

The press, the Supreme Court, Congress and many others weighed in against TR's directive to the Printing Office, and the matter was soon dropped.
No harm, no foul.

ProgressingAmerica: "Inserting government in places where government has no business being, is a hallmark of the specific ideology of progressivism."

Distorting facts and corrupting narratives in support of your personal ideologies and animosities is a hallmark of our Progressive Democrats' brain-fried behavior and is supposed to be eschewed by more rational conservatives.

We should do this one next.

Teddy Roosevelt negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 -- for which he won a Nobel Peace Prize -- and also a Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan in 1907.
Donald Trump intends to negotiate an end to the Russo-Ukraine War in 2025 -- though given the sadly corrupted state of the Nobel Prize these days, that might prove unattainable for Trump.

This tag line of "International relations" is an absolute joke of sanitizing words down to nothingness. You literally have said "Some people did something"

Theodore Roosevelt is a globalist.

The globalist stated:

Finally, it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court.

Trump, conversely, does not favor globalism the way Theodore Roosevelt did. Trump does not believe a "world league" is a "masterstroke". I did not put those words there, they have been there in the transcript for over 100 years.

Furthermore, Theodore Roosevelt the globalist expressed love for the Hague and world court. Trump opposes the very same ICC.

Speech text and audio.

ProgressingAmerica: "How many times are you going to move these goal posts around to suit your agenda?"

Not me, FRiend -- you're the one with the "hate Teddy Roosevelt" agenda who has moved all the goals so that whatever TR did or didn't do, you define as evil.

I'm simply making basic perspective points:

As president, from 1901 to 1908, TR did not use the word "progressive" to describe his policies.
Terms he did use included: Fair deal, justice, equal opportunity & square deal.
TR only became a "Progressive" in 1912, an election he lost.
As president, TR's Federal government was the smallest, relative to GDP, of any of the 30 presidents since the US Civil War.
All of the actions you claim were arbitrary "King Teddy" overreaches, were in fact authorized by Congress or his legitimate powers as Chief Executive.
After TR's 1912 flirtations with serious Progressives like Herbert Croly and the New Republic, TR fell out with them in 1914, and became bitterly opposed, because Croly & company were too Progressive for Roosevelt.
In other words, even compared to serious Progressives of his own time, TR was a conservative.
Compared to today's Progressive Democrats, TR was not just conservative, he was a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

And yet, you want to condemn TR, as if he was the worst thing ever.

He wasn't, far from it.

We would be lucky to have such a leader again.
And, as it happens, we do, or will, starting tomorrow...

😉

Teddy Roosevelt reformed Federal Law Enforcement
Donald Trump will reform Federal Law Enforcement

Here we have the dishonest language again in "law enforcement". This one is also great in pointing out TR's statist progressivism prior to reading Croly's book. Roosevelt was a progressive long before even becoming a governor and this is well known, going back to his friendship with big government Jacob Riis.

Being the King Teddy apologist you are, I highly doubt you've even heard the name Jacob Riis before, so yeah you better get to Googling the name real quick and easing your newfound sweating spasm. Never having heard the name Riis before, that would mean you don't have any understanding the influence that ended up promoting on Roosevelt either.

Roosevelt's creation of the FBI was an affront to the United States Founding Fathers, who stated:

Mr. RANDOLPH. This is a formidable idea indeed. It involves the power of violating all the laws and constitutions of the States, and of intermeddling with their police. The last member of the sentence is also superfluous, being included in the first.
Mr. BEDFORD. It is not more extensive or formidable than the clause as it stands: no State being separately competent to legislate for the general interest of the Union.
On question for agreeing to Mr. Bedford's motion, it passed in the affirmative.
Mas. ay. Cont. no. N.J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va.no. N.C. ay. S.C. no. Geo. no.
On the sentence as amended, it passed in the affirmative.
Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va.ay. N.C.2y. S.C.no. Geo.no.
The next. "To negative all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the Nat: Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of ye. Union"
Mr. Govr. MORRIS opposed this power as likely to be terrible to the States, and not necessary, if sufficient Legislative authority should be given to the Genl. Government.
Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary, as the Courts of the States would not consider as valid any law contravening the Authority of the Union, and which the legislature would wish to be negatived.
Mr. L. MARTIN considered the power as improper & inadmissible. Shall all the laws of the States be sent up to the Genl. Legislature before they shall be permitted to operate?
Mr. MADISON, considered the negative on the laws of the States as essential to the efficacy & security of the Genl. Govt. The necessity of a general Govt. proceeds from the propensity of the States to pursue their particular interests in opposition to the general interest. This propensity will continue to disturb the system, unless effectually controuled. Nothing short of a negative on their laws will controul it. They can [FN14] pass laws which will accomplish their injurious objects before they can be repealed by the Genl. Legislre. or be [FN15] set aside by the National Tribunals. Confidence can not be put in the State Tribunals as guardians of the National authority and interests. In all the States these are more or less dependt. on the Legislatures. In Georgia they are appointed annually by the Legislature. In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be [FN16] willing instruments of the wicked & arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild & certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. Its utility is sufficiently displayed in the British System. Nothing could maintain the harmony & subordination of the various parts of the empire, but the prerogative by which the Crown, stifles in the birth every Act of every part tending to discord or encroachment. It is true the prerogative is sometimes misapplied thro' ignorance or a partiality to one particular part of ye. empire; but we have not the same reason to fear such misapplications in our System. As to the sending all laws up to the Natl. Legisl: that might be rendered unnecessary by some emanation of the power into the States, so far at least, as to give a temporary effect to laws of immediate necessity.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS was more & more opposed to the negative. The proposal of it would disgust all the States. A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary departmt. and if that security should fail; may be repealed by a Nationl. law.
Mr. SHERMAN. Such a power involves a wrong principle, to wit, that a law of a State contrary to the articles of the Union, would if not negatived, be valid & operative.
Mr. PINKNEY urged the necessity of the Negative. On the question for agreeing to the power of negativing laws of States &c" it passed in the negative.
Mas.ay. Ct.no. N.J. no. Pa.no. Del.no. Md.no. Va.ay. N.C.ay. S.C.no. Geo.no.

July 17, at the constitutional convention where they created the actual Constitution.

It's obvious you don't give a damn about the Founders, you haven't mentioned the Constitution not once - and not just in our current discussion these last few days but you don't bring up the Founders or the Constitution at any time when it comes to your hero. But in any case the Founding Fathers did not want a national police force because among other things that would be meddlesome.

Here they are, the Founding Founding Fathers discussing that very thing. Yes, they meant a little more than just law enforcement but they also meant law enforcement as well. Nobody in their right mind claims that the Founders favored the creation of a national police. And notice the flow of the debate, the longer it went on the more offensive it got until that last vote is overwhelmingly no by 9 to 3.

That's exactly what King Teddy I did in creating the FBI, was create a meddlesome national police force. And he did it with less than an executive order. The Founding Fathers did not give the Federal Government a role in your so-called "law enforcement". So where did the king get it from? King Teddy I simply made it up. Waive the kingly scepter and your dreams can come true.

So goes the unconstitutionality and the hatred by progressives of the Founders and our most treasured fundamental law.

Everybody on the planet (except conservatives) wanted Trump to do massive increases in police power during COVID and takeover everything he could find to takeover. Trump flat refused to be a Theodore Roosevelt. Trump embraced federalism instead.

What Roosevelt was saying in 1912 wasn’t what he was doing as president. His thinking had developed, largely under the influence of his intellectual supporters. What Roosevelt did as president from 1901 to 1909 was acceptable to Taft, who continued in his footsteps. What TR was saying about the Constitution in 1912 wasn’t acceptable to Taft at all.

TR early on had the idea that something like the French Revolution or the suppression of the Roman Republic would happen if the federal government didn’t act to curb abuses. Was he thinking about rule by experts from the beginning? He did think that wealthy, disinterested gentlemen should involve themselves in politics, but he wasn’t thinking about experts early on. I think that came later. Would be experts liked his policies and wanted power so they turned to him. Roosevelt appreciated the flattery and found he had things in common with them, so his thinking and theirs developed in the same direction.

What I was trying to say about the differences in progressivism is that the progressive voters weren’t necessarily in favor of rule by experts. In some states the Republican Party moved massively to TR because of his popularity, not because of ideology. Republican voters liked the man and liked what he had done. If they even knew about the Osawatomie speech they responded to its nationalism and moralism, not to its view of the Constitution. Democrats who voted for Wilson (when they weren’t just voting against their tribal enemies) thought they were voting for less government, not far more.

Opening up Josh Hawley’s book on Roosevelt, I see that there was much friction between LaFollette and Roosevelt. You can say that they both wanted more government. Given that the country was going to get more government anyway, their visions were very different. What I also see in Hawley’s book is a major change in Roosevelt after he read Herbert Croly’s book. What TR said in the Osawatomie New Nationalism speech came from Croly. Croly’s ideas were congenial to Roosevelt. He built on TR’s own way of thinking, but took it further, and the speech created a major split among those who had been Roosevelt’s allies and supporters during his presidency.

x: "What I also see in Hawley’s book is a major change in Roosevelt after he read Herbert Croly’s book.
What TR said in the Osawatomie New Nationalism speech came from Croly.
Croly’s ideas were congenial to Roosevelt."

Croly's book "The Promise of American Life" was written in 1909, after Teddy Roosevelt left office as president.
TR read it in 1910 and adopted it for his unsuccessful 1912 campaign for president.

However, by 1914, TR had a falling-out with Croly and The New Republic magazine, at first over US policy towards Mexico, but eventually over many others where Croly was far more progressive than TR felt comfortable with.

US Senator Josh Hawley's (R-MO) 2008 book on Teddy Roosevelt is generally favorable, identifying TR as a "warrior republican".

In 2022, Hawley himself was ranked the US Senate's 12th most conservative senator by GovTrack.US.

In 2024, Hawley was ranked the 9th most conservative senator by CPAC.

In 2024, Heritage gave Hawley a 96% conservative score.

If a conservative like Josh Hawley can accept TR's ideas and actions as legitimate, then I'm not so inclined to give credit to people who claim Roosevelt was a wild-eyed radically unlawful and unconstitutional progressive.

My point here is that by standards of 1908 or 1914, TR was not a wild-eyed progressive, and that by standards of today, he'd be considered a knuckle-dragging conservative!

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.