170px-TR_Buckskin_Tiffany_Knife

A lot of fuss has been made about Teddy Roosevelt of late, especially given Obama's channeling of the former president in Kansas.   I've still got a little left of Christmas break, and the next book on the docket when I return home is Colonel Roosevelt, an admittedly pro-Teddy finale to Edmund Morris' trilogy of the man.

As a teenager, I stumbled upon Morris' first book about T.R., The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and instantly admired the former president.  Here was a man who had suffered debilitating health problems as a child and risen to become a tough frontiersman, battlefield hero, naval genius, and accidentally the president of the United States.  Immediately after his 2nd term, Roosevelt left the States and went on an African safari, bagging hundreds of elephants and other critters for the Smithsonian.  But I found after more reading that there was a less flattering side to Teddy.

For myself, I'm deeply conflicted about what to think about Teddy.  T.R., at least in the years following his presidency, steered sharply leftwards and became a big-government progressive.  He was probably singularly to blame for the election of the atrocious and evil Woodrow Wilson?  Roosevelt was a eugenicist and appointed the likes of Oliver Wendel Holmes to the Supreme Court, who ruled that government sterilization was just dandy.  Much like his nephew, Roosevelt held a deep grudge against business and wealth creators. 

And yet, all that is not quite enough to make me despise him the way I do Wilson.  Roosevelt could have easily remained in his sedentary life among the gentry, but instead, he became a world class outdoorsman, boxer, and lawman.  He pushed hard for military armament in peacetime, allowing the US to handily topple the Spanish Navy.  He bravely charged up San Juan Hill, killing enemy and risking his own life, and even volunteered to lead a contingent in the Great War.  He would have assuredly won the presidency in 1920 again if not for his death. 

Despite my deep admiration for Warren Harding, Roosevelt might have been a better choice in terms of the foreign policy dangers on the horizon.  He would have had no time for nonsense like the Washington Naval Agreement of 1923, which limited the Navy, allowing Japan to catapult ahead of America and Britain.  Might such a forceful personality have altered history so much as to avoid the 2nd World War?  

So am I misguided, and fallen victim as I am wont to do, to the "Great Man" view of history?   

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Terrell David
Joined
Jun '11
Terrell David

In all due respect, Teddy Roosevelt was a big government proponent and part of the liberal and progressive influence that has put our government balance sheet where it is.

He could have been a fiscal conservative even with all the factors.    

Edited on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:03pm
Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

Imperialist scum.

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

A decent look in to his bravado and simultaneous folly can be found in River of Doubt where he tries to navigate an unknown Amazon river tributary. One must consider the time he was raised in and also that he was a person of privilege. Large somewhat ruthless corporations were taking advantage of workers who were fairly desperate and there was a large sentiment to achieve some level of what people determined to be "fairness". The best selling book( other than the bible ) of the 19th century was Henry George's book Progress and Poverty which espoused a land value tax to limit the influence of land ownership on wealth. In the end Roosevelt chose to embrace progressivism without really thinking about the consequences of it. The same way he charged up San Juan hill and led men to doom on the Rio Roosevelt in the book I mentioned. He was brave, opinionated, and above all foolhardy.

Edited on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:41pm
DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

He was also imperialist scum, I second that one!

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

Is this the same Edmund Morris of the fictional biography "Dutch" fame?

Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio
Jimmy Carter: Is this the same Edmund Morris of the fictional biography "Dutch" fame? · Dec 28 at 7:15pm

The same.  Everything I have read of "Dutch" sounds like utter nonsense.  But Colonel Roosevelt came recommended with some reservations by Michael Medved.  

@DocJay,

Actually, River of Doubt arrived under the tree this year, so I plan on reading that after the Morris biography.   

Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio

Terrell David: In all due respect, Teddy Roosevelt was a big government proponent and part of the liberal and progressive influence that has put our government balance sheet where it is.

He could have been a fiscal conservative even with all the factors.     · Dec 28 at 7:02pm

Edited on Dec 28 at 07:03 pm

I don't disagree.  Like I said, I'm conflicted about him.  Teddy the man is inspirational, but Teddy the politician much less so.  Though I think his tough "big stick" diplomacy was preferable to isolationism in the 20s.

Then again, Mussolini, a corporatist progressive of similar mold, also built up a cult of personality around his active lifestyle and swaggering speeches.   

Trace Urdan
Joined
May '10
Trace Urdan

The Morris books are well-written an entertaining to read but they are not balanced in their portrayal. And BTW, Teddy actually hit very few of those animals himself. Most likely they were bagged by his "guides," which I think says a lot about the man's vanity and sense of patrician entitlement.

thelonious
Joined
May '11
thelonious

 I'm both drawn to and repulsed by Teddy Roosevelt.  Throughout the 1890's he was urging the government to go to war with pretty much any European power inluding getting involved in naval battles with Great Britian.  When a somewhat trumped up war came in the Spanish American War he resigned as assistant secretary of the Navy and joined the front lines. Can anybody imagine any cabinet officer doing that today?   He had the perverse beleif that one has to go to war and face the adversity of being shot at to prove ones' manliness.  Kind of sick yet something we're maybe missing in todays society.  Don't like his imperialism or progressivism but I still can't help but like and admire the guy. 


Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

Roosevelt was one of the most enthusiastic advocates for the Sixteenth Amendment. together with Woodrow Wilson and Eugene Debs. 

No conservative, he.


Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Byron Horatio

Despite my deep admiration for Warren Harding, Roosevelt might have been a better choice in terms of the foreign policy dangers on the horizon. He would have had no time for nonsense like the Washington Naval Agreement of 1923, which limited the Navy, allowing Japan to catapult ahead of America and Britain. Might such a forceful personality have altered history so much as to avoid the 2nd World War?

So am I misguided, and fallen victim as I am wont to do, to the "Great Man" view of history?

a: I don't think that I agree that he'd have won in 2020; 2024 was the most anti-progressive election in the C20, with both major parties choosing candidates specifically and strongly opposed to progressivism and the third party being squashed. 2020 saw a nation pretty tired of radical big government change. If he'd lived to 2028, he... probably would have lost to a wonkier progressive. 2032, he'd have been a great candidate.

b: Other than imperialism and the Rambo stuff, what is the small government conservative to admire in TR? I'm not certain that TR would have preferred Chamberlain to Hitler early on.

Edited on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:38pm
Paul A. Rahe

The thing that makes it possible to admire TR is that there was more than one TR. The man who invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House in order to signal his opposition to Jim Crow was admirable. The man who acquiesced in excluding southern mixed race delegations from the convention of the convention of the Progressive Party and the seating of the "lily whites" was not admirable.

He was restless and intellectually incoherent, and he did no end of harm. And yet there was that in him which was admirable.

I agree. Woodrow Wilson was a different kettle of fish.

Edited on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:52pm
The Cloaked Gaijin
Joined
Nov '11
The Cloaked Gaijin

As I mentioned previously, I think Gingrich was correct in comparing Theodore Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton.  Both were highly-intelligent, ego-driven New York colonels who were prolific writers who died young due to their flamboyant personalities.

Professor Rahe was concerned about TR's 1912 platform of the Progressive Party, but Hamilton arrived at the Constitutional Convention wishing to establish a system of life-time appointments for senators and also for a life-time appointed president who would have absolute veto power with the various states losing power with their governors being appointed by Congress.  Talk about your platforms!

I guess the difference is that we never had to worry about Alexander Hamilton's actions as president.  (Crazy small-government Ron Paul probably has a lot to contribute in some way, but it should never be as president.)  Perhaps Gingrich is too zany for some conservatives to be chief executive, but would the same people have said similar things about Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Abraham Lincoln, or Margaret Thatcher?

jetstream
Joined
Dec '10
jetstream

Paul A. Rahe:

...

I agree. Woodrow Wilson was a different kettle of fish. · Dec 29 at 4:51pm

Edited on Dec 29 at 04:52 pm

Professor, would you consider writing one of your signature essays comparing TR and WW?

Johannes Allert
Joined
Dec '10
Johannes Allert

I appeciate his "Great White Fleet," the Panama Canal, and his personal courage. However, his penchant for engaging in progressive politics falls short of traditional Republican themes.

Mike Mulligan
Joined
Dec '11
Mike Mulligan

To Brother Thelonius' points. 

They were the times.  The first guy in the Roughriders who got it in the head with a Mauser round fired by Cubans was Hamilton Fish of NYC and Harvard fame.  Rich, the best tennis player in America at the time--no pros.  I recall all this from Morris' book "The Rise...." 

Courage personified.  TR captures a desperado out West single-handed as a volunteer Sheriff.  If it doesn't kill you ....

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules
Michael Labeit: Imperialist scum. · Dec 28 at 7:06pm

You say that like it's a bad thing.

DocJay: He was also imperialist scum, I second that one! · Dec 28 at 7:12pm

 
I'll take the contrary position.  Imperialism was a tremendous force for good and a major contributor toward the advance of modernity.  Winners:  Asia, Africa, and South America.  Losers:  The Europeans.       

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

Byron Horatio

Then again, Mussolini, a corporatist progressive of similar mold, also built up a cult of personality around his active lifestyle and swaggering speeches.

Mr Obama also has an active lifestyle -- endless rounds of Golf, and rides on girly-bikes. Other than that, there is no resemblance whatsoever to Mussolini ;-) 

Crow's Nest
Joined
Mar '11
Crow's Nest

I agree that there are genuine reasons to admire TR.

He was a sickly child who, through great personal effort, transformed himself into a picture of American frontier manliness. He exhibited physical bravery (and more than a little bravado....) in combat, advocated a vigorous life, and had a robust sense of the importance of the American military and a thorough-going sense of honor. When necessary, he took on entrenched interests in order to serve what he thought was the common good. He used his offices to break the hold the corrupt "boss" system had on the party, and the hold certain manufacturing interests and financial institutions had on sectors of the economy.

What is problematic with TR largely coincides with what is great about TR. Or, restated, the problem of TR is the problem of thymos.

Michael Pate
Joined
Oct '10
Michael Pate

Nobody's Perfect: Roosevelt was one of the most enthusiastic advocates for the Sixteenth Amendment. together with Woodrow Wilson and Eugene Debs. 

No conservative, he. · Dec 29 at 3:56pm

Exactly. He was frustrated by the fact that the federal government barely had enough money for his parks and naval efforts.

When he left office the National Debt was $2,626,806,271.54. Thanks to the kind of runaway spending he advocated, we are borrowing $60 Billion a week.

Edited on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:01am

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In