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

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Michael Knox Beran.

---

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.

[loublain]

If the hot air in this article could be harnessed to produce power it would solve the energy crisis. Buckley at his most orotund was more verbally parsimonious than this bloat

[noloyalisti]

It is the insane policies of Ray Gun that have lead us to where we are. He extolled greed as a virtue. He felt that the government was the problem, not the solution, and then set out to prove it. He was a borrow and spend hooligan and huge fan of corporate control of people''s freedoms and rights.

Leave it to the National *** Organization to continue to extol disaster.

[texanforlogi]

So what''s new? McCain isn''t getting much of ANYTHING correct these days!

[wogerwabbit]

If we''d have allowed all markets to regulate themselves, we''d all be dead by now. Big government is bad, but no government, or as it is today, the government supporting corporate profits over citizen welfare and the common good, is worse. Corporations don''t give a rats patootie about us and indeed, have no obligation to do so. We as individuals don''t stand a chance against them, so the government is our only viable buffer against their greed. Inustry CEO''s and lobbyists now head virtually all of our government departments and have systematically de-balled the regulatory systems everywhere and are leaving us defenseless. Markets don''t self regulate... without rules they are wolves and we are the sheep.

[mcvet]

I don''t often agree with the NRO but in this case they are 100% Right. History records Teddy as being a Progressive... in fact that''s his reason for Leaving the Republican Party AND the reason his Cousin Franklin formed the Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party. In those days we had a mixture in BOTH Parties...that is the reason they could compromise so much better than the parties today.

[quatermass2]

"But wealth per se (which in a free society is merely an account of useful activity)".........

The clown has revealed himself. I suppose the jackass CEO of IndyMac, Michael Perry, has "usuful activity" on his resume - like driving a bank into the ground. And the CEO of GM. And just too damned many to bother listing. "Useful activity" - and even better if they''re "too big to allow to fail". What a crock of ***.

[texanforlogi]

If we''''d have allowed all markets to regulate themselves, we''''d all be dead by now. Big government is bad, but no government, or as it is today, the government supporting corporate profits over citizen welfare and the common good, is worse. Corporations don''''t give a rats patootie about us and indeed, have no obligation to do so. We as individuals don''''t stand a chance against them, so the government is our only viable buffer against their greed. Inustry CEO''''s and lobbyists now head virtually all of our government departments and have systematically de-balled the regulatory systems everywhere and are leaving us defenseless. Markets don''''t self regulate... without rules they are wolves and we are the sheep.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by WogerWabbit at 02:25 PM : Jul 16, 2008


Well said, sir! If there is one thing we''ve learned since the Reagan days is that trickle-down economics don''t work. The rich just go shopping.

[it_oldtimer]

%u201CThe modern conservative is engaged in one of man%u2019s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.%u201D
~ John Kenneth Galbraith

[oneamerican-]

%u201CThe modern liberal is engaged in the oldest of man%u2019s exercises in social philosophy; that is, the search for a superior ideological justification for ignorance.%u201D

- OneAmerican

[it_oldtimer]

@ OneAmerican:

LOL...you are obviously ignorant of who John Kenneth Galbraith even was, aren''t you?

Too funny! And so very typical of a Repug, to think that it''s the liberals who are ignorant, rather than themselves.

Liberals are usually very, very well educated. Liberalism and intelligence go hand-in-hand.

Ignorance, greed and selfishness are the characteristics of a true conservative. It''s the Repugs who all dropped out of high-school.

[irliberal]

"National Review: Ariz. Senator Would Do Better To Site Reagan As Model Rather Than Teddy Roosevelt "

More ignorance from the NRO. This so called writer can''t even use the right word for "cite". Moron.

[andor3]

"More ignorance from the NRO. This so called writer cannot even use the right word for "cite". Moron. "

exactly the writer uses the wrong word and a bad example... Reagan? he is the poster child for what is wrong with America... lack of intelligence, pretending if you do not understand something it is not important, thinking that rich people must be smart and deserve handouts while poor people need to be exploited, substituting empty rhetoric for real thinking, letting actors and image lead... advocating small and ineffective government especially in regulating business...

[terrapin78]

I figured McSame knew TR personally.

[joyous88]

Come on!

McSame doe not even know that he is really a fascist,

why would he understand anything else

[pvperson]

Heres''s a few of TR''s 100 year old statements:

"I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one"

"The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."
"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."
"American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori, %u2014 in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."
"..it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."
"The world would have halted had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands; but the victories of Moslem over Christian have always proved a curse in the end. Nothing but sheer evil has come from the victories of Turk and Tartar."

An example of TR''s fairness:
In Brownsville, Texas, racial tensions were high between white townsfolk and black infantrymen stationed at Fort Brown. Two white townspeople were murdered and the townsfolk blamed the infantrymen. Roosevelt immediately dishonorably discharged all soldiers in the three all black companies.

I think we need a president that''s of the 21st century rather than the 19th.

[sharncedar]

Is this the NRO trying to help McCain by claiming he is too moderate for them? A sneaky reverse endorsement?

[ioweign]

%u201CThe modern liberal is engaged in the oldest of man%u2019s exercises in social philosophy; that is, the search for a superior ideological justification for ignorance.%u201D

- 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

[Razzl]

Bizarre! Do these twits at National Review really think they''re going to take down all of America''s great presidents to clear the way for worshipping that intellectual nullity Reagan? Without TR Yellowstone would be a strip mine and the Grand Canyon would be a parking lot. TR would have called Beran and his overlords at NR "effeminate", though today that would be an insult to women. It must be a great embarassment these days to be a rank and file Republican knowing that these momma''s boys claim to speak for them...

[sparks224]

TR%u2019s face is carved into the side of Mount Rushmore precisely because he was a man of principal. Although it is true he was not a conservative.
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.

[sparks224]

Memo to the NRO: The party%u2019s over, movement conservatism is dead.

[trbundro1277]

Memo to National Review: Mccain is NOT Conservative!

[trbundro1277]

Memo to the NRO: The party%u2019s over, movement conservatism is dead.
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!

[trbundro1277]

of course McSame needs to correlate himself with Reagan.
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!

[gunfighter51]

Conservatism is dead!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

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.

[jjp735i]

It''s not a surprise that McCain admires Roosevelt. After all, how many people can really recall the 1900''s now a days?

Ol''Teddy liked war, so maybe he was a Conservative after all.

[joe1022joe]

The criticism of John McCain due to his age smacks of schoolyard taunting. A fair percentage of 20 and 30-somethings have been way too protected (many still live at home) and have been indulged way too much. Barak Hussein Obama is one of these. When asked to describe the worst thing that ever happened to him, he had no answer. Now folks, this bespeaks of a guy that has had a coddled life. I would want the first time life really slaps a President of the United States in the face to occur while he is president. For many reasons - and coddled-nessis one of them - this guy Obama is not fit for the job.

[superdem]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat when he was a starving young actor. He became a Republican when he had money and didn''t want to part with any of it - surprise ! He was also directly responsible for the deaths of 243 marines in Lebanon, because he couldn''t control Irael - surprise ! - and could only get their invasion force out of Lebanon by putting our boys in. Reagan''s incompetence and poor planning let the radicals drop the house on our poor men. Reagan should have been impeached for this alone. Not to mention his disregard of Congress and illegal support for despotic, murderous right wing regimes in Central America. We still don''t know what his deal with Iran was to free the embassy hostages. We DO know he sold them weapons. That''s right, Republican idolators, REAGAN SOLD IRAN WEAPONS. Suck on that.

Calling any black man in America "coddled" reveals a brain that is "throttled," which is not unimaginable for one who supports a McCain-brain "muddled" and "befuddled."

[joyous88]

McSAME is not a conservative any more then McBush is,

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

[joyous88]

how much did the ''conservative'' reagan spend on his own funeral,

55 millions in taxpayer dollars to bury this worthless piece of craap,

what a fascist

[mcvet]

The criticism of John McCain due to his age smacks of schoolyard taunting. A fair percentage of 20 and 30-somethings have been way too protected (many still live at home) and have been indulged way too much. Barak Hussein Obama is one of these. When asked to describe the worst thing that ever happened to him, he had no answer. Now folks, this bespeaks of a guy that has had a coddled life. I would want the first time life really slaps a President of the United States in the face to occur while he is president. For many reasons - and coddled-nessis one of them - this guy Obama is not fit for the job.

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

[mcvet]

Reagan could out politic the amateur BHO from his grave.

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

[aldon61]

Teddy was a different candidate in a different time. For McCain to identify Teddy as a conservative shows that McCain doesn''t understand what he''s talking about. The McCain of 2000, the one we liked for his "maverick" style, could''ve very easily identified with Rossevelt (they were both mavericks). But when McCain started his pandering to the Christian right and espousing conversative values, he should have picked a new hero. But that''s right Mister 894/899 isn''t known for his smarts, is he?

[hasher47]

Mc Cains reputation as a ''maverick'' is misnomer.
As 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.

[kansas1946]

The problem with McCain is that he just isn''t very smart. He may be gallant and brave, but he just isn''t smart. In that, the only thing he has over Bush, is that he is gallant and brave. Bush was none of the above and that is partly resonsible for the current mess. Most of our presidents at the very least, have been smart.