TIMOTHY NOAH DECEMBER 7, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
One of the reasons that it was clever for Obama to give his Dec. 6 speech about inequality, opportunity, and the middle class in Osawatomie, Kansas, where Teddy Roosevelt gave his "New Nationalism" speech in 1910, is that it provided an occasion to be reminded that today's GOP has little use for the 26th president of the United States--you know, that comsymp carved into Mount Rushmore along with Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington.
A 1997 ranking of the presidents, based on a survey of 32 experts chosen by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., put TR sixth, after Lincoln, Washington, FDR (all judged "great"), Jefferson, and Jackson ("near great," a category that included not only TR but also Wilson, Truman, and Polk, who's been enjoying a revisionist revival in recent years). A rival 2000 ranking sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society and Wall Street Journal editorial page bumped TR up to fifth place. The GOP's last presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R., AZ) spent much of 2008 pledging to follow in TR's footsteps.
But don't tell that to George Will. In May Will complained that presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty sounded "like a dime-store Teddy Roosevelt" and added, parenthetically, "the real TR was bad enough." On National Review Online Michael Knox Beran has complained of TR, "Rather than use government to promote freer, more competitive markets, he used it to promote government itself." Need I remind you that TR was for Obamacare before even Mitt Romney?
The Heritage Foundation's Web site reproduces TR's "New Nationalism" speech and, in a preface, explains that this was a key historical turning point that put America on the road to serfdom:
"The radical change from the Founders and Lincoln is clear: In the name of 'national efficiency,' Roosevelt calls for 'real democracy.' Society’s needs become the measure of individual rights. 'We should permit [fortunes] to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.' Such an admittedly dramatic 'increase in government control is now necessary.' He proposes a 'Federal Bureau of Corporations.' There follow graduated or progressive income and inheritance taxes on 'big fortunes.' Thus, the federal and state Departments of Agriculture should 'extend their work to cover all phases of farm life.'
"But the regulation of the national economy requires control over private life as well. In order to fulfill government’s purpose of serving the welfare of the people, Roosevelt demands 'a genuine and permanent moral awakening.' The federal government must even mold the family and education to guarantee Progressive results. The 'New Nationalism' stands not only for a strong military and global presence but also nationalization of life generally."
Last year Glenn Beck (who used to be a big deal on the right) identified TR as pretty much the antichrist. Yesterday on Fox News correspondent Chris Stirewalt said,
"What Teddy Roosevelt was calling for was sort of a socialistic nationalism in which the government would take things away from people who got things that he didn't think they should have, give it to the working man, they talk about the square deal, fairness, all of these new mandates for government, something the Republican party has walked away in very decided fashion certainly since the Reagan era, in terms of what the role and purpose of government is."
The distinguished presidential historian Megyn Kelly chimed in: "Teddy Roosevelt was calling for something akin to a socialist nationalism," prompting Stirewalt to reply, "Exactly." Kelly then puzzled over why Obama would embrace so obvious a scoundrel: "Why would President Obama want to do anything that would associate himself with that word, 'socialist,' which has been used against him by so many of the current Republican presidential candidates, among others?"
I think maybe she was confusing TR with Emma Goldman. An easy enough mistake to make.
When McCain was running around in 2008 comparing himself to TR I wrote a Slate piece headlined "McCain's Hero: More Socialist Than Obama!" But let the record show that I was kidding ("TR, of course, was no socialist"). Roosevelt was a reformer who worried that unless America's disparities of wealth were addressed there might be a Marxist revolution. It sounds quaint today, but Republicans (and Progressives) used to worry about that sort of thing. Here's what TR wrote in his 1916 autobiography:
"I have always maintained that our worst revolutionaries today are those reactionaries who do not see and will not that there is any need for change. Such men seem to believe that the four and a half million Progressive voters, who in 1912 registered their solemn protest against our social and industrial injustices, are 'anarchists,' who are not willing to let ill enough alone. If these reactionaries had lived at an earlier time in our history, they would have advocated Sedition Laws, opposed free speech and free assembly, and voted against free schools, free access by settlers to the public lands ... and the abolition of imprisonment for debt; and they are the men who today oppose minimum wage laws, insurance of workmen against the ills of industrial life and the reform of our legislatures and our courts, which can alone render such measures possible. Some of these reactionaries are not bad men, but merely shortsighted and belated. It is these reactionaries, however, who, by 'standing pat' on industrial injustice, incite inevitably to industrial revolt, and it is only we who advocate political and industrial democracy who render possible the progress of our American industry on large constructive lines with a minimum of friction because with a maximum of justice."
Aren't you glad we don't have anybody like that today?
19 comments
The Progressives came out of the Republican Party, starting with Teddy Roosevelt. But the Republicans soon put an end to that, forcing Teddy to run on the Bull Moose Party. And that was the end of Progressivism on the Republican side -- they'd thrown their lot in with Corporations and the 1% of their day. Today only the Democratic Party has any claim to the Progressive mantle, as Obama demonstrated in his speech. I only hope Obama continues to "talk softly and carry a big stick" in the coming days, no matter what the Republicans throw at him in response.
- AllanL5
December 7, 2011 at 2:47pm
The ideologues out here are happy but I am worried. If Barack Obama becomes too populist, I worry that he might alienate independents. And for what's it's worth, John Maynard Keynes advised FDR in a letter to tone down the anti-corporate rhetoric. This will not register with the roids of the world, who have constructed their own private Keynes in their minds, but nevertheless, Keynes wrote that letter.
- liberalref
December 7, 2011 at 3:08pm
The "Party of Lincoln" bs becomes ever more of a contortionist nightmare. How, exactly, are today's Republican politicians members to lay claim to Lincoln's legacy and claim that the Republican party has been one of uninterrupted patriotism and greatness, from 1860 to today, while not merely ignoring the giant ideological shifts that have occurred, but while condemning one of their own standouts smack in the middle of that 150-year streak?
- janus
December 7, 2011 at 3:15pm
I don't think Obama is being populist. He is just stating the truth, that since 1980 the top few income earners have tilted economic policy in their favor thus making it excrutiatingly hard for the vast majority of Americans to live a prosperous life. When all that matters are capital gains, and capital gains result largely from labor outsourcing, then we are a nation that is eating ourselves alive. And that is precisely what is happening. The top 1% have devoured us. Isn't it time that a President actually speak up against this unspeakable evil?? Who really is protecting the social safety net? Who is actually, demonstrably trying to make America relevant in the future? Who is trying to boost our industries globally? Make our healthcare deliver better quality? Make our environment cleaner and better? There is no way for Obama to shy away from his courageous leadership on these issues because of the phantom independent voter.
- RedState
December 7, 2011 at 4:03pm
In both branches of the Roosevelts (Oyster Bay (Theodore) and Hyde Park (Franklin)), citizenship has been a paramount concern. Today's wealthy families (Walton, Koch) seem more concerned about taking away from the country that made their wealth possible than giving back to the country that made their wealth possible.
- rayward
December 7, 2011 at 4:09pm
It is obvious that BHO has adopted a populist tone and message.
- liberalref
December 7, 2011 at 4:50pm
And it's also obvious, to anyone who listens to Obama, that he is not fighting "class warfare", he's not "demonizing Wall-Street", he's simply emphasizing fairness and good regulation. And saying that the most recent push to cut taxes and deregulate has been the cause of the most recent Recession. Of course, that's not how Fox-News and Glen Beck spin it, but we're trying to manage by fact, not Supply-Side dogma.
- AllanL5
December 7, 2011 at 6:03pm
I find it amazing how this certain kind of reactionary stupidity is always with us. It must be some malfunction of the brain hardwired into us by evolution. Lord knows why.
- blackton
December 7, 2011 at 6:07pm
It is amazing what the ideologues cannot see. Of course BHO is engaging in class warfare. He didn't start it; he joined the battle. Also, it's Glenn Beck.
- liberalref
December 7, 2011 at 7:11pm
libref: Avoiding all the very, very tempting usual targets you've laid out, I have a genuine curiosity. Why would one becoming "too populist" alienate independents? Populism is an appeal to the average citizen, the popular will, the mythical "middle," rather than hewing to ideology; how can that possibly be opposed to appealing to independent voters? What would better appeal to them-a naked appeal to elitism? (By the way, I do agree with you-he is clearly adopting a populist tone. And bully for him. It's about time.)
- janus
December 7, 2011 at 11:05pm
Cohn: "Aren't you glad we don't have anybody like that (TR} today?" Correct. Sure would like to see a Progressive Populist running in 2012--- Rather than having a election in 2012 between a BHO Taft-like Dem vs a Know Nothing from a previous century or two. You won't get a Progressiuve Populist (e.g., Elizabeth Warren, Brian Schweitzer, twenty other Dems) runninng for a generation as a Presidential candidate consistently advocatiung effective Keynesian policies unless BHO is defeated in 2012. Whoever is elected in 2012 is going to get the blame for the economic trainwreck that's about to hit. Pray that is Repub in all branches of the Federal Government. Not a faux Keynesian. janus: (By the way, I do agree with you-he is clearly adopting a populist tone. And bully for him. It's about time.) And you think that populism will continue in tone and substance? That's not bully, that result is highly-unlikely BS. In tone (but not substance) the Gingrich,Bachmann, Palin, Cain Tea-Party panderers are [Know-Nothing] Populist types that BHO cannot match.
- drofnats1
December 8, 2011 at 1:33am
Timothy Egan of the nyt makes a similar point "...In attempting to show himself as the man who would ensure Roosevelt’s progressive legacy, Obama showed only the timidity of modern political discourse. Roosevelt’s speech was a manifesto; most of his ideas eventually became part of American life. Obama’s Osawatomie oration was a rear-guard action, defensive of a governing philosophy under fresh fire. ....it’s shame that Obama, in channeling T.R. from a long ago summer’s evening, could not reach for anything more stirring in his proposals than a call for the approval of his consumer protection bureau appointee, and the continuance of tax cuts for wage-earners. So it is, a curse of the modern political age: no one from our times is even a distant candidate for Mount Rushmore." As an aging member of the can-do generation, I continue to believe that Americans- and the politicians they elect-- can do better. As a scientist, I know enough economics to know that economics is an emerging science and that Keynesian economics is the only theory that explains most of the data. And that Keynesian analyses for the EU and US predict an economic (albeit self inflicted) Pearl Harbor. I believe that Americans as of December 6th in 2011--as were Americans on December 6th in 1941-- are capable of changing behaviors and attitudes in a short time given appropriate political leadership. That will not come from BHO or any current Republican candidate above 2% in Iowa pols. I believe Americans generally recognize this problem-- and see no solution. While they don't understand the economic theories (similar yto over 95% of tnr bloggers), they are searching for an economic (rather than military) modern-day Churchill -- and recognize an economic Chamberlain is in office. The soonest a Progressive Churchill (or FDR) can now be elected is 2016. Work for that day.
- drofnats1
December 8, 2011 at 9:28am
Aging?? I thought you were like twenty-four or something, given your pathetic grasp of events. And you certainly describe yourself when you write about bloggers not understanding economic theories. Also, your take on FDR is mythographic, rather than real. The actual FDR had to be pushed into taking robust measures at times. But that is real life, more fits and starts, and less Iliad, than the hero-worshippers love to imagine.
- liberalref
December 8, 2011 at 10:03am
If Obama is being really populist, he runs the risk of alienating the independent elites, not the average independent voter. By definition, isn't populism directed toward the majority of people. Actually, never mind, he'd have to be effectively populist, and being effectively anything is not a democratic strong suit. Sadly, a lot will turn on whether the opinion gatekeepers acknowledge the truth of what he is saying or get into their pearl clutching about how awful it is to demonise a class of Americans, while ignoring how Gingrich has built his entire carer on explicit hatred of the working poor.
- miceelf
December 8, 2011 at 10:03am
Because populism is not moderate and independents tend to cluster around the center in their political attitudes.
- liberalref
December 8, 2011 at 10:05am
Yes, of course, populism is directed at the majority of people, but that doesn't mean that x percent of the targeted won't run from it.
- liberalref
December 8, 2011 at 10:16am
Ah. As enlightening as I expected, libref. Populism won't please everyone, so better to do nothing and wait for a position that can please all of the people all of the time. Your campaign against bold action continues apace. By the by, while I vehemently disagree with drofnats on a number of points, your dismissal of both drofnats as "pathetic" and the wisdom of 24-year-olds is itself pretty pathetic. If I ask a bunch of 24-year-olds who they think of as great Americans from history, I'm pretty sure they won't recall too many who weren't pretty damn bold and partisan in one respect or another-and in doing so, they'll demonstrate greater political wisdom than you.
- janus
December 8, 2011 at 10:52am
Liberalref, is there any particular statement that Obama made in his speech which you regard as repellant to independents? It all seemed fine to me, in tone and substance. Or, is this just a response to headlines that use the word "populist"? I find perverse this aversion to discussing the struggles of large numbers of people, this extreme sensitivity to even the slightest whiff of "class warfare." I agree with you about hero-worship. Too many liberals don't give Obama enough credit, and they harbor unrealistic expectations, and they exaggerate the accomplishments of past Democrats. However, it's not ideology -- just a fact -- that the agenda of today's Republican Party amounts to (i) deny people health care, and (ii) cut taxes for the wealthy. Nancy Pelosi put it well on the Daily Show: Pelosi: "We don't want any more government than we need. But we have to also recognize that we have two different paths here. One path, bless their hearts, the Republicans, they do what they believe. And they do not believe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public education." Hinting ever so gently that you harbor a different set of values, doesn't make you Huey Long. It makes you non-crazy. I thought independents appreciated non-craziness.
- JakeH
December 8, 2011 at 11:32am
It is now clear that President Obama's splendid speech this week at the even more splendidly named historic town of Osawatomie, Kansas, had two primary objectives. The first was to articulate a clear and bold vision of a creative and purposeful community that would meet the nation's challenges politically, collectively and democratically rather than leave them to fate, or chance or to some ephemeral "free market to decide," which is more often than not a euphemism for rule by a few, or a fraudulent "freedom" wrongly thought to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Obama's second objective in giving this speech on the same spot as Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech from 1910, was to expose the endemic extremism in the modern Republican Party -- not by provoking a predictable right wing counterattack against himself, but by inviting Republicans to repudiate their own history and traditions. Which they did. Judged by their response to the President's speech, Republicans who now make a pilgrimage to Mount Rushmore will be able to pay homage to just one of the four president's whose visage is carved in the monument's Black Hills granite. Having already written off Thomas Jefferson as both godless and too cosmopolitan, and Abraham Lincoln as the "tyrant" who invaded the South rather than let the slave-holding Confederacy go free, George Washington is the only dead president left who still gets any respect at all from Republicans, who now lump Teddy Roosevelt in with all those other communist sympathizers and fellow travelers. Many of us have been saying for the past three years that the hysterical nature of right wing attacks against this remarkable and much-maligned President -- called by the right a dangerous radical bent on destroying the country and undermining its history, institutions and traditions -- says a lot more about the current state of the Republican Party than it does about Obama himself. Extremists, after all, always need extremists on the other side to justify their own extremism. And claims that President Obama is a "radical socialist" were always preposterous when Obama's actual performance was placed within the currents of American history, since Obama has always been squarely within the American mainstream. In contrast, Republican attacks on President Obama only make sense from the perspective of a political party that has moved so far to the radical right that any exercise of national governmental power at all on behalf of the needs of the American people is seen, by the deformed definitions of this right wing movement, as "socialist," or worse. By bringing Teddy Roosevelt back from the dead on Tuesday, President Obama signaled that he intends to make 2012 the election about big ideas that's been overdue in this country for a very long time. And before this campaign is over, I suspect TR will not be the last American icon who will be called upon to speak to us from the other side of the grave as Americans do more than pick the next President but also work to resolve who we are as a people and what kind of nation we want to become.
- TedFrier
December 8, 2011 at 1:16pm