[nicollo]

TR wanted direct control of industry, with discretion for him to decide when/where/how - all in the name of the common man, of course.

And that doesn’t even get into his direct democracy and activist courts agenda, both for which this nation is still paying deeply.

[Rockingham]

The driving force of TR's reformism was opposition to the corruption and predatory commercial practices that were routine in the era. Big business regarded that state of affairs as routine and rightful, and legislatures and courts at the time usually agreed, being pervasively under the influence of virtually open bribery.

The initial round of progressive laws and regulatory agencies proved to be inadequate. This led TR and other Progressives to urge a more intrusive set of regulations and agencies. This was after TR was out of office. His proposals failed to gain many adherents.

You mention activist courts. Modern legal scholarship mostly considers the legal decisions against progressive reform measures as judicial activism and based on invalid constitutional theories.