Teddy Roosevelt - Socialist

[RoyalShock]

An interesting read from September, 1913.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9504E4D6113BE633A25753C3A96F9C946296D6CF

[SubGod22]

Interesting indeed.

[RoyalShock]

Much quotable material in there, but here is a sampling:

There are not enough great fortunes to satisfy Mr. Roosevelt's great Progressive Party after it has once made a beginning of redistributing wealth by confiscation.

Mr. Roosevelt's reconstitution of society would leave it inert by destroying individual initiative, hope, and ambition, which are the foundations of progress.

The fatal defect of it is that the American people are far too intelligent, they have too much common sense to be deluded by the shallow sophistries of the Roosevelt Socialism.

[Maggie]

TR did embrace socialist ideology – he was a product of the intellectual environment in which he lived. TR launched the Progressive party. Wilson and TR, and the subsequent progressive synthesis of the two, has shaped much (too much) of our politics. That said, TR, regardless of his political views, was a really impressive guy. He was a Great Man in the historic sense, with a biography and intellect very similar to Winston Churchill’s.

[60Shock]

TR did embrace socialist ideology – he was a product of the intellectual environment in which he lived. TR launched the Progressive party. Wilson and TR, and the subsequent progressive synthesis of the two, has shaped much (too much) of our politics. That said, TR, regardless of his political views, was a really impressive guy. He was a Great Man in the historic sense, with a biography and intellect very similar to Winston Churchill’s.

Absolutely!

Other than being a Progressive, there should be no question in anyone's mind that Teddy Roosevelt was a true American patriot and a most honorable man and President.

[kcshocker11]

Other than a progressive? What a laugh! I love the comedy in these threads.

[shockerofandover0943]

Other than a progressive? What a laugh! I love the comedy in these threads.

Not to say that progress isn't good, but the progressive movement of the early 20th century has definitely changed the way people look at government. It opened the gates to people looking at government as an agent to fixing all of our problems, when that is just not possible. Does the world need to continue to progress and improve the way it does things? Absolutely. However, the progressive movement looks more and more toward the government to be the agent of progress, rather than the people.

[Wu du Nord]

I hate that Teddy Roosevelt destroyed America, in 1913. Wait, what?

Personally, I kind of like the National Park system.

[kcshocker11]

Not to say that progress isn't good, but the progressive movement of the early 20th century has definitely changed the way people look at government. It opened the gates to people looking at government as an agent to fixing all of our problems, when that is just not possible. Does the world need to continue to progress and improve the way it does things? Absolutely. However, the progressive movement looks more and more toward the government to be the agent of progress, rather than the people.

Baloney

[Maggie]

Baloney

Care to explain?

[kcshocker11]

:highly_amused:

I hate that Teddy Roosevelt destroyed America, in 1913. Wait, what?

Personally, I kind of like the National Park system.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!!!!!

[Maggie]

:highly_amused: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!!!!!

Par for the course, kc.

[Wu du Nord]

People's expectations for government change. Ascribing that change to a particular 'movement' is the result of myopia, especially when the ascription is made retrospectively. Also, it's unhelpful to believe that a specific role of government is correct, and all others are incorrect.

[shockerofandover0943]

Well, people are definitely scared of the role they think that government would like to assume.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151490/Fear-Big-Government-Near-Record-Level.aspx

[Wu du Nord]

Well, people are definitely scared of the role they think that government would like to assume.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151490/Fe...ord-Level.aspx

What, in this context, is 'big government'? Is it taxation levels, number of people employed by the state, or merely the size of individual politicians?

I can assure you that the figure 'big government' is not universally constituted, and subsequently traded upon, by the respondents to the poll or the within the population being represented by it.

Similarly problematic, 'big' is an adjective that simply opposes small; meaning, it necessarily gains definition from its surroundings. Sometimes 9 is big. Sometimes 2 is big. Sometimes 1,000,000 is big. Sometimes they are all small.

Often, too big/too much/etc are merely descriptive indicators that 'other' has something. A-Rod makes 'too much' money. The 1% has 'too much' political influence. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama has 'too much' power. Shockingly, the shoe gets moved from foot to foot, on occasion.

Poll questions of the sort "Do you fear big government?" are essentially fodder for political writers and talking heads. People fear big government. Let's say the government is too big. Jep, jep.

Edit: How quaint, Big Government vs Big Business? That's not particularly helpful. The overlaps are many and people seem to be able to jump back and forth, at least in the economic/finance sectors, with tremendous ease.