I've very often had people express nostalgic longing for a president like Teddy Roosevelt - a hunter, fisherman, outdoorsman, soldier, adventurer and writer of books; a man not afraid to conquer and not likely to apologize for it. A conservative's conservative. Someone who stood, square jawed and well armed astride the American horizon in a time of unlimited freedom, opportunity and prosperity when the lower orders knew their place. Thus are the dreams.
Of course Teddy was often denounced as a Communist Agitator. Today his opinions would have the Sarah Palins and Joe who isn't a plumber flapping in a frenzy like decapitated chickens. He espoused a graduated income tax and more government regulation of financial markets. He advocated more government social programs such as housing for immigrants. Of course there were no Nazis then to be falsely associated with American progressivism and no way to compare him to Hitler as today he inevitably would be.
Roosevelt's time had seen the effects of economic booms, panics and busts in rapid and relentless quick step. Economic inequality was growing, monopolies were tightening their grip on free markets and massive accumulations of private wealth were threatening democracy. His vision didn't include doing nothing or faith in the power of doing nothing or blind trust of the altruism of the very, very wealthy.
"Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism "said Roosevelt in a famous 1910 speech calling for a "New Nationalism" One wonders what bizarre grotesqueries of accusation would emerge had it been given today. Would people be carrying weapons to his speeches, would he be called a tyrant, would there be hysteria over the way he was "dismantling freedom?" Would they question his citizenship, his patriotism; accuse him of murder? It's hard to tell but surely Barack Obama has suffered worse for less radical statements.
Of course Teddy had to remind his audience after he said
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration"that he was quoting Abraham Lincoln because he was regularly being called a totalitarian himself - as well as a Communist. Perhaps such things never change, but the perception of an America that's sliding irretrievably down a slope toward the antithetical perdition of communism and fascism because sentiments such as those of Lincoln and Roosevelt are essentially "far-left" and "liberal" and we're being assured of it daily by mindless maggots with megaphones.
It seems that the Niebelungs of negativity have been crying wolf for a very long time, but look at how well the average man lives today compared to how he lived a hundred years ago when poverty consumed most of us and faith based laws restricted huge numbers to certain neighborhoods, certain jobs, certain levels of education, certain expectations of justice in an essentially Hobbsian society.
Somehow I cannot believe that a hundred years of progress toward more liberal goals have made us justifiably disgruntled. We live longer, live better, cleaner, healthier and have far more freedom to alter our circumstances for the better. The slope has not been slippery, the slope never existed. Progressive income tax has not stifled entrepreneurship which has thrived even in times of over 80% top brackets and in fact it seems to dampen economic cycles. It seems the only wolves that have shown up were wearing conservative clothing and warning us of wolves.
Isn't a new nationalism what we need today? The old kind and the old attitude and the old maxims and the old and vicious, dishonest and hate-filled rhetoric has never done us any good and have now brought us to the brink.
Ah. Captain Fogg, spoken like a true conservative!
ReplyDeleteA conservative understands that time marches forward not backwards and that as conservatives we want to move forward and we understand that change is a constant but we want to be forward thinking while balanced with a respect for the values and virtures that brought us to the point we find ourselves.
It is not that we fear change but that we understand that we must move forward in logical and deliberate steps.
Today, what was once conservative thought is now progressive ideals.
What passes for conservative thought today is actually reactionary and counter productive. But what can you expect when anyone with a keyboard and internet access can claim an expertise and an opinion that deserves a public forum?
James Madison in Federalists Papers #10 covered the point about how factions are disruptive to Democracy...
TAO: "What passes for conservative thought today is actually reactionary and counter productive. But what can you expect when anyone with a keyboard and internet access can claim an expertise and an opinion that deserves a public forum? ."
ReplyDeleteLast night, Rachel Maddow pointed out that our news sources have partitioned along partisan lines. Those who watch Fox get news biased from the right; those who watch MSNBC or CNN get news reflecting another bias. There is no standard of "objective" reporting, and no standard set of facts presented to both groups upon which voter decisions are based. Public attitudes reflect this "Balkanization" of news, and positions become more firmly entrenched.
Yesterday, I perused a rightwing blog; the owner confirming Maddow's point. She admitted to watching only Fox News while expressing total contempt for other cable channels. In other words, this blogger is not receiving the same news we receive. More than mere insulation or myopia, this partitioning of news seems to be deepening the partisan divide.
So it seems we have become a nation of mollusks, each tightly shut inside our shells. And perhaps that is why we, as a country, have reached this impasse.
You ask if people today would bring guns to Teddy Roosevelt's speeches. Well, in fact, someone did bring a gun to one of his speeches, and shot him while he was speaking.
ReplyDeleteTeddy being Teddy, he refused to go to the hospital until he finished his speech.
A gross oversight on my part, I guess, if not a sloppy bit of writing. I'm aware of assassination attempts - and successes, but I had in mind the open display of weapons as a political statement. I think that's new.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteYes, that's all possible – some of these guys are paid shouters rather than bona fide haters. (Not that one can't be both.) What I gathered from watching the clip we saw was something like fear or strong anxiety – the sort of thing someone with my views might feel when surrounded by a crowd of people wearing and carrying virulently anti-Obama messages. The range of possibilities there is pretty narrow: either savage the other side until they fall silent (unlikely as that is when it comes to the right), or get humiliated yourself. But I guess that's what it comes down to when your honorable opponents can't think of anything more sophisticated to do than scrawl a Charlie Chaplin mustache on the guy you voted for.
On the gun thing, it seems that the laws need to be clarified – it is certainly not appropriate for people to show up with pistols and assault weapons anywhere near the president. The president is a national symbol and the most vital member of the government. We should no more allow a direct or even an implied threat against a government officer than we would allow someone to drive up to the Lincoln Memorial or the White House with a truckload of plastic explosives. The response to this problem has been weak up to now – I'm pretty sure a person can't hang around the sidewalk outside an elementary school with an AK-47 without getting shuffled off to the police station. Detaining a nut like that doesn't violate any sane person's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Neither should keeping gun-toters away from the individual certified by election as the most important person in the country.
Correction -- "some of these guys are paid shouters" should be "some of these guys are probably paid shouters" since, of course, it's not possible to know outright unless you've got proof.
ReplyDeleteI agree very much that, as a threat to world security, there should be restrictions on having weapons at such events - open or concealed. As I said, if I can be told not to bring a gun to a courthouse or police station or school or even the corner bar, this should be a no-brainer. Of course the second amendment does say "shall not be infringed" which is unfortunate, but no right should be unlimited or be construed as a right to threaten or extort or endanger and no right is as far as I know. The traditional "fire in a theater" argument holds true and I don't see why the same theory does not hold elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly I'm reading some very vocal gun rights advocates who are saying such irresponsible behavior is setting their cause back - and they're right. It is.