[ProgressingAmerica]

I started running the progressingamerica project around 2010 - then at the time (myself) not fully realizing the full extent of Theodore Roosevelt’s progressivism. I had only then started to begin to realize the larger-than-life role that Woodrow Wilson played. Nevertheless, -

This is a huge contradiction that the conservative movement is going to have to resolve. We cannot hold out Progressivism as America’s Cancer then do an about-face and hold out Theodore Roosevelt as the “good progressive” while carving out an exception for him that he did not earn and does not deserve. Calling this a cognitive dissonance is right on the money. There is no such thing as a good progressive, no progressive deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card for the damage they have done.

Any time I’ve pointed out TR’s big government love, his globalism, his anti-constitutional rhetoric and actions, it never earns me cred as an anti-progressive - not that that’s what I seek its merely commentary on the end result. I’m allowed to discuss the end results of these things. The reality is when I record words that Theodore Roosevelt spoke and create downloadable audio books out of them, it’s an attack on the U.S. constitution that I’m forced to make come to life. That’s what TR represented, but that should not be my fault for recording it, it should be TR’s fault for saying it(or if an action, for doing it) in the first place.

My first completed and released audio book was “Philip Dru, Administrator”, as an expression of my realization about what Wilson represented and still to this day represents - but admittedly Woodrow Wilson is only 50%. When studying the deep state/administrative state you actively have to lie to yourself to ignore that TR is smiling back at you in the mix. In order to reach 100% you must consider both Wilson and TR at the same time.

TR was who he was and we need to accept that. If he were alive today we would call TR an Obamunist and mock him. Obama was a fighter, but who cares? He fought for all the wrong things. Above all, the single-most undeniable fact of all facts that nobody on the planet can deny: Theodore Roosevelt was in fact America’s first progressive president. There is no way to avoid this. You can only hide from it. That’s where it begins.

Conservatives want more than anything to be rid of progressivism. Except. Conservatives also want more than anything to claim Theodore Roosevelt as their own. Only one can stand. The other must fall.

I welcome anybody who wants more than anything to defend Theodore Roosevelt - listen to the New Nationalism speech. I guarantee it will make your stomach churn. Who cares if he hunted a lion. He hated the Constitution. That is what matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzj9-cHMLwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCtFyrisfvM

[Carry_Okie]

As to TR's claim to be a conservationist, that is true insofar as his beliefs were concerned. But there were seriously defective origins to that common cultural mythos (and still are).

As to his understanding of ecological remedy, they extended only to megafauna he was fond of hunting (and to this day, I would say hunters have a better grip on the real problems of exotics and succession than most ecologists). He had no concept for what importing exotic species would do to the foundations of the food chain and as a culture, we still don't.

[little jeremiah]

Bitt - you might like to add ProgressingAmerica’s articles to your ping lists.

[Rockingham]

I believe that, on balance, few conservatives today would oppose Teddy Roosevelt's four signature accomplishments:

(1) antitrust legislation that helped break up abusive monopolies and business combinations; (2) the establishment of the national park system; (3) the development of the US Navy into a modern force and the building of the Panama Canal that led to America's rise as a global power; and (4), anti-corruption legislation that helped remedy abuses that had put Congress and state legislatures at the service of the highest bidder.

Condemning such measures and Teddy Roosevelt as the fruits of Progressivism lets a now pejorative label control our understanding of history. We do much better if we understand the issues of the day and history on their own terms before fastening on good and bad labels based on today's politics.

Notably, the core conservative constitutional thinking of the latter 19th century that Teddy Roosevelt objected to has not fared well over the years. The theory of freedom of contract based on substantive due process and the severely restrictive view of the federal commerce clause lack clear grounding in the text of the Constitution and the thinking of the founding era. That makes them contrary to conservative legal scholarship today.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a huge contradiction that the conservative movement is going to have to resolve. We cannot hold out Progressivism as America’s Cancer then do an about-face and hold out Theodore Roosevelt as the “good progressive” while carving out an exception for him that he did not earn and does not deserve. Calling this a cognitive dissonance is right on the money.

I think it is a mistake to lump Theodore Roosevelt "progressivism" in with modern "progressivism." There are distinct differences between what Teddy did and what modern liberals do.

The Anti-trust stuff he did was necessary. He did a lot of things that needed to be done in way of separating corporations from having so much influence on government, which is pretty much the opposite of what modern liberals do.

[Pete Dovgan]

TR was a different time and circumstances.
He wasn’t wrong for his time, he is wrong for ours.
Just like the Robber barons of the late 1800 and early 1900 are vilified, they were essential for the growth of the nation and its ability to survive two world wars.

[rlmorel]

Sigh. This is true. All of it. And I am as guilty as anyone in not holding Theodore Roosevelt to account for his statist policies.

I have long struggled with it, because I liked a lot of the aspects TR tried to project in himself.

He was full of vitality, he was belligerent when I thought he should be, he served with distinction in the military, he wasn't afraid to try new things (although, as one of our fellow Freepers points out in an enjoyable book he wrote William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency, 1909-1913 Roosevelt seemed indifferent to motor vehicles and preferred horses, probably not surprising given his own history)

I always admired him greatly due to his physical activities and seemingly empty reserves of visible fear, and he wasn't just hot air. He did a lot of extraordinary things in that respect. His trip to the Amazon basin at the age of 54 as outlined in the book The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey is not made up or contrived.

He actually undertook that journey into a completely unexplored area of the Amazon, and nearly lost his life in the process. But that was part of who he was.

But as my journey away from what my teachers (and fans of Theodore Roosevelt and guardians of his legacy) wanted me to hear, I began to examine his record, and I didn't like his meddling in corporate or cultural affairs. He became less attractive to me, and Presidents such as Calvin Coolidge became far more attractive to me. Today, it would not even be a contest if it were between Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt. I would take Calvin Coolidge 100% of the time, hands down.

As a Chief Executive, I would trust Coolidge to learn how to navigate properly and make the right decisions in an area many might think Theodore Roosevelt would be superior.

But in economic and corporate manners, I want someone like Coolidge, and would today trust him to make sound, calm decisions in matters of foreign affairs or war.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

Outstanding post!