Federalism or Teddy Roosevelt: You Can Only Pick One: Trump’s supporters should be careful not to saddle him with the legacy of a man who did everything to undermine the Constitution

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.

"For examples, in 1912, all four parties supported ratifications of both the 16th and 17th Amendments.

This is bizarrely insane. One of those four was TR/Bull Moose Progressive.

Either TR was on-board for the graduated tax, or he was not. You stand on both sides here, attacking at the sheer mention of it but now you admit it. You need to choose.

Am I only allowed to talk about it when BroJoeK approves?

"I'm still saying the same thing -- you're reading backwards

I'm reading forward. From 1900 to 1920. I've been reading forward with these specific numbers for 15 years.

ProgressiveAmerica: "This is bizarrely insane.
One of those four was TR/Bull Moose Progressive.
Either TR was on-board for the graduated tax, or he was not.
You stand on both sides here, attacking at the sheer mention of it but now you admit it.
You need to choose.
Am I only allowed to talk about it when BroJoeK approves?"

No, FRiend, you need to choose -- choose sanity over luni-talk.
You claim Teddy Roosevelt is to blame for the 16th & 17th Amendments when the simple fact is that, in 1912 all four political parties supported both ratifications, none opposed it.
Roosevelt's Bull Moosers received roughly 1/4 of the popular vote in 1912, so we might say they are 1/4 to blame for ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments.

That leaves about 75% of the blame on Democrats (Wilson), Republicans (Taft) and Socialists (Debs), all of whom also supported ratifications.

ProgressiveAmerica: "I'm reading forward.
From 1900 to 1920.
I've been reading forward with these specific numbers for 15 years."

So, let's see if we can separate facts from fiction.
These are some of the facts:

Eugenics' peak popularity lasted from roughly 1890 to 1930, corresponding rather well to Teddy Roosevelt's adult life, which ended in 1919.
If we measure eugenics by forced sterilizations, then 17 states never legalized forced sterilizations -- Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
I see no regional or political bias in this list.
Of the 31 states which legalized forced sterilizations, 13 did so during Teddy Roosevelt's lifetime: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
18 states legalized forced sterilizations after 1920, the last one being South Carolina in 1938.
Already by 1935, three of the states which had previously legalized sterilizations, had again outlawed them -- New York (1920), Pennsylvania (1931) and Alabama (1935).
By 1960, nine more states which had previously legalized sterilizations again outlawed them.
In 1927, the US Supreme Court in Buck v Bell found (8-1 Holmes) sterilizations to be constitutional in Virginia.
In 1942, in Skinner v OK, SCOTUS unanimously (9-0 Douglas) abolished some forms of forced sterilization, and the US Congress passed laws in 1973 and 1990 which effectively abolished all forced sterilizations.

Bottom line is that Eugenics, as an idea, had its decades in the sun, when it was considered to be "smart", "progressive" and making common sense.
During this era 31 states (with roughly 62% of the US population) legalized forced sterilizations

17 states never did legalize it, and already by 1920, New York had abolished its previous legalization.

Regarding Teddy Roosevelt, I can find no evidence to support suggestions that:

TR's views were in any way outside the pro-eugenics mainstream of his time.
TR's support was instrumental in passing any of the 31 state sterilization laws.
TR, or any other major politician of that time realized the full moral, legal, scientific and practical implications of eugenics laws in the USA, much less as abused in later years in places like Nazi Germany.

ProgressingAmerica: "Auschwitz"
More bizarre items.

"It is clear you have no idea of the rotten things the eugenicists did right here in the US during the Progressive Era, from the Kallikak Family, to the Jukes, and even Buck v. Bell.
I read forward, which is why I know about Kallikak, Jukes, etc."

I don't think anything which happened in the USA, relating to eugenics, in any way compared to events in places like Nazi Germany, which applied those ideas to their own circumstances.

And regardless, there is no evidence that any of this was intended by Teddy Roosevelt.

ProgressingAmerica: "This would get easier if you stopped making assumptions and simply looked at what is being said."

And there it is -- your exact problem, projected onto me.

What can I say?

You claim Teddy Roosevelt is to blame for the 16th & 17th Amendments when the simple fact is that, in 1912 all four political parties supported both ratifications, none opposed it.

He is to blame, because that's his record as President. He also supported the death tax.

None of this has changed since we discussed it last time, here: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4198052/posts?page=51#51

Theodore Roosevelt revived the Income Tax in the 1906 State of the Union Address, and then made sure his henchman Taft went out there and started up the Constitutional Amendment in congress. Here, listen to the address yourself, and I'll clip the text at the bottom. He spent a lot of time on his passion for soaking the rich, this was important to him. He brought up the Income Tax AGAIN in his 1907 SOTU, because like a stuck-up punk Progressive, he wasn't going to just let it go. The income tax WAS going to happen. And it did. Roughly 5 years later - 16th amendment was here. Thank you Theodore friggin Roosevelt.

https://librivox.org/state-of-the-union-addresses-by-united-states-presidents-1901-1908-by-theodore-roosevelt/

The only wiggle room you've got is to scapegoat Taft. That's it, those are the two choices because that's what the timeline and the history support. It's either TR or Taft, who was operating as TR-mini-me at the time. The speech:

In addition to these there is every reason why, when next our system of taxation is revised, the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. On the one hand, it is desirable that he should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation; on the other hand, it is quite as necessary that in this kind of taxation, where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger of inaugurating any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation. Whenever we, as a people, undertake to remodel our taxation system along the lines suggested, we must make it clear beyond peradventure that our aim is to distribute the burden of supporting the Government more equitably than at present; that we intend to treat rich man and poor man on a basis of absolute equality, and that we regard it as equally fatal to true democracy to do or permit injustice to the one as to do or permit injustice to the other.

Just as an aside, just listening to how he speaks is sickening. "The National Government" ... "owes a peculiar obligation to the State" ... This sort of linguistic verbal diarrhea is exclusively progressivistic. Conservatives do NOT worship The State this way. Yeah, soak the rick that's "a spirit of entire justice and moderation." What a crock. What an insult.

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.