July 16, 2008
Memo To McCain: T.R. Wasn't A Conservative
National Review: Ariz. Senator Would Do Better To Site Reagan As Model Rather Than Teddy Roosevelt
-
Teddy’s Roosevelt's Progressive agenda was driven not by principle but by political opportunism and a heightened sensitivity to the mood of the moment. (CBS)
-
Play CBS Video Video Controversial Campaign Remarks Katie Couric and CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield discuss recent controversial comments from Barack Obama supporter Rev. Jesse Jackson and John McCain advisor Phil Gramm.
-
Video Still Not On The Same Page On a day when the economy took center stage, the candidates for President talked about foreign issues. Barack Obama and John McCain showed how far apart they are on many fronts. Kathryn Brown reports
-
Video The Politics Of War Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain each say they have the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. Dean Reynolds reports.
-
Timeline McCain's Quest Mileposts in the Arizona senator's race for the GOP nomination and the presidency.
-
In-Depth VP Hot Sheet: McCain CBSNews.com ranks the top contenders to be McCain's running mate.
Asked recently by the New York Times to name a conservative model, John McCain cited Theodore Roosevelt.
Teddy, of course, had no shortage of virtues. Conservatism, alas, wasn’t one of them.
It’s one thing for a conservative to admire T. R.’s style and gallantry, the charge up San Juan Hill, the rounding up of crooks in the Badlands. It’s something else for a conservative to identify Roosevelt as a fellow reformer, as Sen. McCain did in the Times interview. Far from allaying conservative fears, McCain can only add to them by trying to make a conservative of a man who, largely for reasons of expediency, embraced a host of dubious reforms, and who ended his public career by embracing the Progressive dream of a state strong enough to command the industry and commerce of the nation.
True, as a young man T. R. resisted the Progressive agenda. In the New York State Assembly he opposed attempts to monkey with the free flow of goods and services, and he voted down a minimum-wage bill. But he was eager to advance himself, and he soon discovered which way the winds were blowing.
As president he proposed the progressive taxation of incomes and estates, to the dismay of classical liberals who argued that laws should not discriminate against particular classes of people, even rich ones.
The Hepburn Act of 1906, for which he worked lustily, strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission’s grip on the railways - a step that led eventually to the dilapidation of the railroads and to Amtrak.
As for the 1906 Food and Drug Act, which established the FDA, its principal beneficiaries (so Milton and Rose Friedman contend in Free to Choose) were the meat-packers, who were glad to have taxpayer-subsidized help in ensuring the quality of their cattle.
Roosevelt’s dance with the command economy culminated in his “New Nationalism” manifesto. In the suitably visionary precincts of the John Brown Cemetery in Osawatomie, Kansas, on a hot day in August 1910, the ex-president mounted the tripod and lamented, in lugubrious and apocalyptic tones, the “absence of effective state” in America. He called for a paternalist form of government that would “control the mighty commercial forces” of the Republic.
Two years later, having failed to wrest the Republican party from Taft, Roosevelt ran for president as the candidate of his own Progressive party. Though he out-polled Taft, he lost to Woodrow Wilson.
Teddy and his fellow Progressives were on a wild-goose chase. They failed to see what was really wrong with America’s system of political economy in their day, its lack of an effective anti-monopoly regime. Although the Sherman Act had been on the books since 1890, antitrust law was in its infancy. Roosevelt’s own approach to monopoly was emotional and neurotic. He acted as though he were on safari in Africa, trying to bag big game like the Northern Securities Company for purposes of psychological catharsis. There was nothing, in his predatory technique, of the professional coolness and method of Taft, who during a shorter spell of executive power brought nearly twice as many antitrust suits, and without nearly as much ranting and raving.
Roosevelt made up for his want of inspirational principle by striking out in all sorts of irrelevant directions. His tax proposals were designed to bring the “criminal rich” and “malefactors of great wealth” into line. But wealth per se (which in a free society is merely an account of useful activity) was not the problem. The problem was wealth derived from monopoly.
In advertising his hero-worship of Teddy, Sen. McCain exhibits a little too blatantly an aspect of his own psyche that would best be kept under wraps. He, too, has been accused of political narcissism. If he wants to reassure conservatives, he needs to persuade them that, unlike Roosevelt’s, his own policies will be grounded in something more solid than expediency and a canny reading of the whimsies of the moment.
There is another problem with McCain’s attempt to induct Roosevelt into the conservative pantheon. T.R.’s contempt for what he called the “gold-ridden, capitalist-bestridden, usurer-mastered” aspects of American life, his admiration for the élan of the warrior, did not reflect a conservative temperament, as conservatism is understood in America. True, the warrior virtues are, in the last resort, what keep us free. But it is possible to take one’s admiration of the iron-jointed, supple-sinewed hero (he who catches the wild goat by the hair and hurls his lances in the sun) too far, especially in a country like ours, a commercial and as a rule pacific nation.
In disparaging the “timid and short-sighted selfishness” of the “bourgeois type,” in cultivating the mystique of the warrior, an adoration of strength and muscle-tone, Roosevelt revealed his psyche to be tropically rank with that morbid second-growth of romanticism which Wagner and Bismarck, Treitschke and Nietzsche, did much to nourish in the latter decades of the 19th century.
In his 1915 book Händler und Helden (Merchants and Heroes), the German prophet-economist Werner Sombart offered a précis of the degenerate philosophy of late romanticism. Sombart glorified the heroic aspirations of the Germans, which, he maintained, were of a higher order than the piggishly commercial credos of the English (and by extension the Americans).
The union of the romantic yearning for the heroic-archaic and the socialist craving for an anti-capitalist utopia (to be administered by a vanguard of élite technocrats) which Sombart’s thought embodied led to those cults of blood and bureaucracy which spelled disaster, not only for Germany, but also for Russia and China, and for the many smaller countries which followed their examples.
The inbred, déclassé romanticism of Sombart was alive in the swampier places of the sage of Sagamore Hill’s soul. Teddy read the German romantics with enthusiasm and interpreted them to an American public; he shared their affection for the police power; he could rattle the saber with the best of them. There was something distinctly Bismarckian in his reactionary progressivism, which bears affinity to the pathology of “liberal fascism” identified by Jonah Goldberg.
All in all, John McCain would do best to talk more about Ronald Reagan, and less about Theodore Roosevelt. And while he is at it, he might come up with a new “favorite book,” one that isn’t, like “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, a maudlin lament for a socialist bridge-bomber.
More vaguely Roosevelt argued that laissez-faire economics had been superseded by a new, more efficient gospel of administrative supremacy. Edmund Morris, who in Theodore Rex was manifestly hypnotized by his hero’s sound and fury, argued that “the outdated system of laissez-faire . . . was accelerating out of control.” So, at any rate, Roosevelt believed. Rather than use government to promote freer, more competitive markets, he used it to promote government itself. The state, not the market place, was his ideal. In the Roosevelt lexicon “bourgeois” was a pejorative.
Yet if Roosevelt was not a capitalist, neither was he deeply or sincerely a Progressive. He was a man of the state. Robert La Follette perceived the falseness of his reformist strutting: “Theodore Roosevelt is the ablest living interpreter of what I would call the superficial public sentiment of a given time, and he is spontaneous in his reactions to it.” Teddy’s Progressive agenda was driven not by principle but by political opportunism and a heightened sensitivity to the mood of the moment. The deviousness with which he negotiated the shoals of public opinion might have passed for wisdom, had it not been so patently pressed into the service of self-glorification.
By Michael Knox Beran
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 CommentsAs any of his colleages in the Senate will attest, he is a cantankerous, ill-tempered, and quick tempered person. I believe "loose cannon" is more accurate.
Posted by Gunfighter51 at 05:29 AM : Jul 17, 2008
Reagan was just simply a chance for America to step back and look at what they had done over a VERY Progressive Period. Now it''s time to move it along. Sieg Heil Bush
Posted by joe1022joe at 08:24 AM : Jul 17, 2008
Over my Lifetime I have heard some VERY Bigoted SICK human''s but YOU have got to be the worst! This Young Senator form my State has been anything but coddled and He has given MORE to his State and His Nation than a LOW LIFE like Bush EVER will. McSame WAS once a good leader, now?? Now he can''t remember what he did yesterday. Now why don''t you put away the Confederate Flag and come join the rest of us in the REAL world. Sieg Heil McSame
55 millions in taxpayer dollars to bury this worthless piece of craap,
what a fascist
they are both nazi fascists, look it up,
and Reagan the first criminal american president, and mcbush''s model belong in prison with the other two,
the conservative agenda is driven by the mindless christian vote and it deserves to die
Ol''Teddy liked war, so maybe he was a Conservative after all.
I would''nt count my chickens before they hatch.
You might be looking at the next George McGovern.
Reagan could out politic the amateur BHO from his grave.
Both are senile.
Posted by ainttaken at 07:04 PM : Jul 16, 2008
** Both supported Amnesty for illegals!
Reagan in 1985 or 1986 gave amnesty to over 4 million illegals, and in 2007, Mccain co-sponsored a bill that would have given amnesty to over 12 million illegals, dems and repubs knocked down the bill before it could get through congress, luckily! I don''t want to lose my job to one of over 12 million people that came into this country illegally! That is why I hate Mccain! Because Mccain supports amnesty for illegals! Mccain needs to move to Mexico, that is where he belongs! He is a mexican hero, not an american hero! Teddy Roosevelt fought the spanish in the Spanish-American war! Now Mccain want to let their decendants that illegally came into this country, to be granted citizenship through amnesty! Talk about people not having a clue! Vote Obama 2008! Say no to spanish becoming the #1 language in the USA! Mccain would change United States of American, into United States of Mexico!
Posted by sparks224 at 12:38 AM : Jul 17, 2008
** Conservatism would be allowed to survive if they would stop trying to give amnesty to illegals! Reagan and Mccain are both amnesty supporters! Teddy R. went to war against Spain in the late 1890s, Mccain wants to let their decendents that illegally came into this country to get amnesty! Teddy R. would be rolling around in his grave if he knew what Mccain is trying to do by giving over 12 million illegals amnesty! Say no to amnesty! Vote for anyone other than Amnesty Mccain!
He lived in the days before greed and self interest became a %u201Cprincipal%u201D.
Most conservatives wouldn%u2019t know a principal if one bit them in the a.s.s.
- OneAmerican
Posted by OneAmerican- at 05:23 PM : Jul 16, 2008
So McCain is liberal with his class ranking of 894 out of 899...
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
John Stuart Mill
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 Comments