Replies

The Progressive Era must have been an exciting and fascinating time to be alive, but people were very confused then. They were easily agitated and dragooned into working for causes. They convinced themselves that unfreedom or decadence were freedom. I think it's because the smart younger generation was in revolt against Victorianism and seized on anything that went against Victorianism and loosened social constraints as freedom. This was only starting in the Progressive years, and it was much worse later, but it did start in the Progressive era. The older generation of TR and Wilson was wholly Victorian and believed in the "higher freedom," the freedom from natural selfish instincts. Thus prohibition and socialism could be regarded, quite perversely, as promoting freedom.

A couple things:

The 16th was commenced in Congress and enacted and the 17th was commenced in Congress under Taft. The 16th was his doing: facing the certainty of an income tax he insisted the Constitution accomodate it. Doing so, he avoided it, which was his purpose. His tariff and a corporation tax fulfilled budgetary demands and negated the need for additional taxes. (One of Taft's greatest accomplishments was governmental "economy" -- he cut expenditures and took the Treasure from red to black.)

As for trustbusting, Taft initiated far more "octupus" busts than TR, and Taft concluded many that TR had started but failed to complete, notably the Standard Oil case. But TR turned on Taft on this very issue. He said that the anti-trust law was inadequate, and following the "rule of reason" that came out of the Std. Oil case, TR and the progressives altogether abandoned the Sherman Act. Taft argued that it had finally fulfilled its goal. The progressives argued that only regulation could manage business, that business would naturally be big and monopolistic so only a public-private partnership could manage it (ouch...national socialism, anyone?). The socialists were all for this program, except they wanted to change ownership from Morgan and Rockefeller to "the people."

I see you grasp what I'm saying about TR when you note that La Follette was trying the same thing but without as much success as TR. Yes, it was personality not philosophy that took him so far; nevertheless, it was the hysteria he invoked that was behind the compulsion of the personality.

The more I think it over, the more convinced I am that McKinley would have tackled the social and industrial problems of the period without raising expectations and emotions so high as had Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley had a knack for absorbing and channeling emotions into reasonable action, from the reactionaries, to the silverites, to his own Cabinet and military staff. He was far more brilliant, if intellectually inferior, to Roosevelt. Roosevelt was smart as hell, but entirely bullheaded. McKinley was very open minded -- which made him brilliant. (is that not the definition of a liberal?) McKinley reminds me of Reagan, actually. And there's a man who tempered and redirected the emotions of his age.

McKinley trounced Bryan (twice) for the same reason that Taft beat him, people trusted him. Tr, btw, faced only Parker, and, as I noted above, that was fortunate for him for it meant that he got both conservative and "independent" votes, while Parker only took core Democratic votes. On the whole, the people liked TR but did not trust him. A hard core adored him, perhaps measured by his 1912 votes, but that was not enough to carry a national election.

But he had enough press, following, and energy to stoke the national emotions. Look at how far Ralph Nader has gotten, what with his 4 percent and all. Multiply that by Theodore Roosevelt and you can only begin to imagine the hysteria Taft faced in early 1912. We owe Taft some serious thanks.

As for what might have happened had TR not been shot in 1912, the most probable outcome would have been that he was the third-place runner, not Taft. The shooting brought sympathy for Roosevelt, who was lagging at that point. Taft had just won some key pre-November elections. Even the bookies were starting to raise his odds. But with the shooting, both Taft and Wilson backed off any political attacks against Roosevelt, and the emotional sway went his way.

Thanks for the insight on FDR. And your no. 94 is dead on.