TJ or TR?

 

JeffersonThe filmmaker Ken Burns has a new documentary coming out this week called The Roosevelts, which profiles Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor. This prompted a discussion on the latest episode of The Thomas Jefferson Hour podcast. Humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson (who portrays Thomas Jefferson on the show) also portrays Theodore Roosevelt and has participated in several of Burns’ documentaries, including this latest.

TRThe discussion on the show was about what these two men would have thought of each other. Because Jefferson died 32 years before Roosevelt was born, we don’t know how he would have viewed his fellow president. But since TR wrote plenty and wasn’t exactly shy, we do know what he thought about Jefferson. He was… not a fan.  

As TR put it, Jefferson’s “influence upon the United States as a whole was very distinctly evil.” Jefferson’s modesty in foreign policy was not to Roosevelt’s taste. Jefferson believed in limited government, Roosevelt — not so much.  Jefferson saw the Constitution as listing what the federal government could do. Theodore Roosevelt saw the Constitution as saying what it couldn’t do.

Their political philosophies were irreconcilable with one another. Jefferson was the arch-minarchist. Roosevelt was on the leading edge of progressivism and a devout believer in the muscular executive.

So my question to you all is:

Which do you prefer as a president? TJ or TR?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gödel's Ghost Inactive
    Gödel's Ghost
    @GreatGhostofGodel

    EThompson:

    I dislike TJ intensely because he didn’t fully understand the necessity of a national military and banking system. He was a dedicated enemy of my favorite founder, Alexander Hamilton, who basically invented the capitalist system in America and was responsible for setting up this country to be the financial success it became. (The fact that Democrats chose to hijack and distort Hamilton’s strategy is hardly his fault.)

    Thank you for the trenchant reminder why I strongly prefer Jefferson and hate Hamilton (and no, the “Democrats chose to hijack and distort Hamilton’s strategy” doesn’t pass the laugh test; cf. Andrew Jackson and, for that matter, Democrats all the way up to that fiscal reprobate, John F. Kennedy. Democratic socialism of the kind we currently see is a very recent phenomenon).

    • #31
  2. Salamandyr Inactive
    Salamandyr
    @Salamandyr

    I’ll take Thomas Jefferson over TR.

    • #32
  3. user_130720 Member
    user_130720
    @

    And the political significance then or now of TJ DNA in SH is?……

    • #33
  4. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Tuck:

    Spin: Correct me if I’m wrong, but TR was essentially a prototypical Progressive. Right?

    Not “essentially”, he founded the Progressive party. He laid the ground that Wilson trod on…

     Not to be picky, but the definition of “essentially” is “used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.”  So yes, essentially.  

    • #34
  5. user_259843 Inactive
    user_259843
    @JefferyShepherd

    TJ and it’s not close.  I say this without visiting the details of each person’s life and accomplishments because the both shine.  I certainly won’t judge TJ using today’s mores and values.  It’s quite simply not fair.  Just so, I won’t judge TR either though, in many ways, every bit the racist TJ was and possibly worse for his “teutonic” sentiments.  What seems important to me about the two are the aspirational beliefs.  TJ, on the one hand, was for liberty and limited government while TR was for liberty through government. A quote from a speech of TR’s of which Ms Pelosi would be proud:  “We propose, on the contrary, to extend governmental power in order to secure the liberty of the wage workers, of the men and women who toil in industry, to save the liberty of the oppressed from the oppressor. Mr. Wilson stands for the liberty of the oppressor to oppress. We stand for the limitation of his liberty not to oppress those who are weaker than himself.”

    • #35
  6. Nathaniel Wright Inactive
    Nathaniel Wright
    @NathanielWright

    If you’d given me a choice between Washington and Coolidge, I’d be torn. As for a choice between Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, I am torn between which deserves my greater disdain as a politician. TJ’s support of the French Revolution – even as it was clearly becoming more vengeful than its justice claims supported – loom large against him. I much prefer the good Gouv’s response to the Terror.

    Which I’d prefer to read a series of Mack Bolan style adventure novels about…that would be Roosevelt…unless someone wanted to write a series of Scarlet Pimpernel-esque novels about the Gouv.

    • #36
  7. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    There’s nothing that says you can’t love Hamilton and Jefferson. Heck, as implied earlier, I’ve a big soft spot in my heart for Aaron Burr as well.

    • #37
  8. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    There’s nothing that says you can’t love Hamilton and Jefferson. Heck, as implied earlier, I’ve a big soft spot in my heart for Aaron Burr as well.

     Did you read Nancy Isenberg’s bio of him?  Fantastic.

    Fallen Founder

    • #38
  9. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Burr, by Gore Vidal is so good it excuses all of Vidal’s political nonsense. I recommend that anyone interested in historical fiction read it. Can’t we find a Goldilocks candidate between these two? If Jefferson were alive today he would be an ivory tower Zinn or Chomsky, were TR alive he’d be John McCain.

    • #39
  10. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    skipsul:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    There’s nothing that says you can’t love Hamilton and Jefferson. Heck, as implied earlier, I’ve a big soft spot in my heart for Aaron Burr as well.

    Did you read Nancy Isenberg’s bio of him? Fantastic.

    Fallen Founder

    Honestly, I hated it. She’s a good historian, but a lousy biographer; if you write a book about Aaron Burr and it’s only passably interesting, you’ve failed rather badly.

    • #40
  11. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Stand-up guy, Martin. Interesting factoid: he spent the last three years of his life bedridden after a stroke. Burr was his host and caretaker all that time.

    • #41
  12. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    anonymous:

    Among founders, does anybody share my fondness for Luther Martin?

     Will add it to my reading list as time permits.

    • #42
  13. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    skipsul:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    There’s nothing that says you can’t love Hamilton and Jefferson. Heck, as implied earlier, I’ve a big soft spot in my heart for Aaron Burr as well.

    Did you read Nancy Isenberg’s bio of him? Fantastic.

    Fallen Founder

    Honestly, I hated it. She’s a good historian, but a lousy biographer; if you write a book about Aaron Burr and it’s only passably interesting, you’ve failed rather badly.

     I had a different impression of the book, but as the only bio of Burr I’ve read so fare it was my only exposure.  Also, I got the unabridged audio book in the bargain bin, and listening to a book does give one rather a different impression than reading it.  You pick up different details I suppose, especially when you’re also listening while commuting.

    • #43
  14. user_139005 Member
    user_139005
    @MichaelMinnott

    Gaius:

    “His modesty in foreign policy was not to Roosevelt’s taste.”

    Jefferson had a distrust of standing armies rooted in the Whig tradition. That does not mean he was opposed to the vigorous use of the small military available to him as he demonstrated during the first Barbary war. If today’s non-interventionists were not so eager to claim Jefferson’s legacy as to forgo their usual consistency they would denounce Jefferson as a sort of proto-bush when it comes to mid-east intervention.

    The  Barbary pirates were more of a direct threat, as they menaced American merchant ships, seizing them and ransoming, or enslaving the crews.  Jefferson’s response was thus more utilitarian and less romantic than Bush’s nation building.  However, I think you are correct in pointing out that hard line isolationists are kidding themselves to think the world will leave us alone if we just retreat into our shell as a nation.

    As for my favorite, TR, or TJ, I’ll have to go with TJ.  TR may have had his virtues, but the state is now so over weaned that we could use a minarchist like TJ.

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.