After many starts, stops and detours, I have finally finished Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris's wonderful biography of TR's White House years. I knew very little about Roosevelt and I was curious to see if there was any merit to the common liberal meme, "were Theodore Roosevelt alive today, he would almost certainly be a democrat."
Having read Morris's book, I feel I can safely say that it would be far less delusional to suggest that, were JFK alive today, he would be a Republican. Compare JFK's fierce anticommunist philosophy and his antipathy toward Castro in particular to the recent slobbering Castro love fest exhibited by certain democrats in Congress. Consider Kennedy's unquenchable competitive spirit and individualism, which challenged the nation to put a man on the moon within 10 years (we did) and commanded the nation "ask not what your country can do for you." Barack Obama too has spouted impressive-sounding rhetoric about sacrifice and duty. Kennedy, unlike Obama meant what he said, but I digress.
There seem to be only two plausible reasons why any liberal would ever mistake TR for one of them: first, he was what we would now call an environmentalist, and second, his actions toward business and the financial community were far from laissez-faire (and if I were feeling unkind I might suggest a third possibility: that liberals, none too steeped in history, make unfortunate assumptions about this man named "Teddy" and his "rough rider" male companions).
To the first point: it irritates me to no end that liberals seem to feel that they have exclusive rights to care about nature. I as a conservative am not allowed, in their eyes, to care about the environment. But for all of their histrionics and pageantry, it's often the whackjob greenies of the left, not conservatives, who do more ecological harm than good: It's the liberals who refuse to allow controlled burns of western forests, the result being that every autumn half of California burns to the ground; liberals force compact fluorescent light bulbs on everyone, paying no mind to the fact that (a) each bulb contains enough mercury to cause a hazmat crisis when broken and that (b) most bulbs are made in coal burning plants in China, which could give a damn about Kyoto or any other such greenie mandate; liberals mandate ethanol--a far less efficient form of fuel than petroleum--irrespective of the toll to soil nutrients, animal food supplies and consumers' pocketbooks. Environmentalist liberals pursue inefficient and idiotic (and sometimes deadly) crusades that are fueled perhaps 5% by facts and 95% sentiment. At the other end of the spectrum is someone like conservative outdoorsman Ted Nugent, who practically worships nature, and who understands the difference between common sense husbandry (ie, burning off some brittle trees to avoid a conflagration)and idiotic feelgood nonsense (placing a quota on your trips to the fridge so the polar bears won't drown). Let's face facts: given the choice between spending a day with a hemp-clad, birkenstock-shod, dreds-sporting, hackeysack-dribbling, prius-driving treelicker, or stalking buck with the Nuge, is there any doubt that TR would have hung with the Motor City Madman?
On economic policy, it cannot be denied that Roosevelt was far more liberal than his party's platform. But neither can it be denied that his views were also way, way, WAY to the right of modern democrats. Roosevelt felt that enormous trusts and companies, largely unchecked by toothless antitrust laws, needed to be reigned in to some degree and shown that they were not sovereign. But he also knew when not to go too far. Balance was a big deal to TR, as the manner in which he obtained an agreement between the anthracite miners union and the mine owners illustrates: while at first he seemed more sympathetic to labor, the President forced both sides to make significant concessions and to come to terms that each party could live with. Other "anti-tycoon" laws, however vociferous their verbiage, seemed to have been almost symbolic in practice: so long as the President's men were allowed to look at the books now and then, businesses were largely left alone. Roosevelt did veer further left his final year in office. Nevertheless, his views on business regulation, taxation (he did call for an income tax) and the role of government spending cannot plausibly be characterized as anywhere near as liberal as his cousin Franklin's--let alone Barack Obama's.
And there is one crucial difference between TR and other presidents whose economic views were far from the capitalist ideal: Theodore Roosevelt knew when to stay the hell out of it. Herbert "The Smartest Guy In The Room" Hoover took a sharp recession and turned it into a depression by meddling in affairs of which he knew little. Then came FDR, who made Hoover's fiddling look like kid's stuff and turned a depression into economic perdition. Theodore Roosevelt didn't really know what he was up against during the panic of 1907, and as a result he kept to the sidelines and let J.P. Morgan save the day. Sometimes the best leadership is stepping aside and letting the people who know what they're doing, do it. Did you catch that, Barry?
Upon examination of TR's foreign policy record, the suggestion that he was anything like a democrat becomes sheer hilarity.
In the first place, TR would bow to no foreign leader. And I have a feeling that were he alive to see Our National Treasure bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, Roosevelt would have exploded in rage.
TR knew when to use diplomacy ("Speak softly,") and when to threaten ("carry a big stick"). It was this mixture of persuasion and assertiveness that secured a peace treaty between a Czar and an Emperor. Unlike our incumbent, who feels a pathological need to apologize on our behalf to every tin pot thug he sees, Roosevelt felt no compunction whatsoever about putting America and her interests first (more to the point to say TR felt no compunction about anything he did, ever). He risked war with Germany in defense of the Monroe Doctrine. He all but printed a public invitation for Panama to break away from Columbia so he could have his canal where he wanted it. He demanded--and got--a massive build up of the Naval fleet, and promptly dispatched this display of American pride and virility to cruise around the world.
One doesn't have to strain one's faculties to imagine what TR would think of modern liberal foreign policy, were he alive to see it. Col. Theodore Roosevelt risked his life in battle to liberate Cuba, and POTUS Theodore Roosevelt both secured Cuban trade reciprocity and dispatched Marines to her shores when the government there grew unstable. Methinks TR would not be kindly disposed to the commie thug who enslaved his protectorate, nor toward the congressmen and women who so recently basted said thug's posterior with wet kisses. Roosevelt probably would have resorted to blows with Obama for bowing to the House of Saud, or for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, or for whispering sweet nothings in Ahamdinijad's direction. He would have been ashamed to see Clinton's handling of Mogadishu. And as far as Jimmy Carter is concerned, let's just say that Jimmah should thank his stars that Teddy wasn't around to see what he did with Panama.
And on the subject of Carter: As far as the 39th President's most famous international fiasco is concerned, we actually have a similar event from Roosevelt's tenure to which we can compare. A refresher on the Iranian Hostage Crisis: In November 1979, some Shiite pond scum seized our embassy in Tehran and took 66 people hostage(ultimately 52 US diplomats remained hostages for the duration). Jimmy Carter sat on his hands for six months before authorizing a pathetic rescue attempt which failed abominably. Another rescue was never attempted and the hostages remained prisoners until January of 1981. Now, flashback to June of 1904. American Ian Perdicaris was taken hostage in Tangiers, Morocco by a Muslim terrorist named Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Raysuni. In response, TR immediately dispatched a couple of battleships to the Moroccan shores to pressure the local government into securing Perdicaris's release. Needless to say, Teddy got what he wanted, fast. These procedings give us an idea of how TR would have dealt with the "hornet's next" of the Islamic world in the wake of 9/11. Yes, Roosevelt's legacy just screams "left winger," doesn't it?
And that, class, is what I have learned about the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. On economic ideology, liberal in some ways, conservative in others. On matters of American sovereignty and security, an ultra right wing Hawk. He might have resembled (to a degree) what we today refer to as the "Country Club Republican," but there can be no question that he was and would be a Republican. And right about now, we could do (and are so doing) a hell of a lot worse than to have a man like him in the White House.
