Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?

Expand Messages
  • mrmoose@pol.net
    This is a complex & most interesting question! TR upheld Judeo-Christian ethics, being a Church-going Christian & reading the Bible at night, at least while
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      This is a complex & most interesting question! TR upheld Judeo-Christian
      ethics, being a Church-going Christian & reading the Bible at night, at
      least while he was married to Alice Lee. Those of us who still hold
      Judeo-Christian ethics, which are rapidly becoming outmoded with today's
      Post-Modernism, still grapple with this question. The answer is: all of
      the above!!!

      If you look at TR's life & career, he
      upheld family values (Conservative),
      lobbied against Trusts (Liberal),
      ended the near-Coal Stike of 1902 with benefits for the miners (Liberal),
      invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House (Radical),
      built a strong Navy (Conservative),
      was a Conservationist (?Progressive),
      hunted game (Conservative),
      wanted a Square Deal for all (Liberal-Progressive),
      was a member of NYC elite Clubs (Conservative), yet was friendly with some
      people such as Booker T. Washington & chummy with journalists such as
      Jacob Riis (Liberal/Radical)
      felt guilty about a second marriage (Conservative to the point of being
      reactionary!!!)
      Loved new inventions & lobbied for them (Progressive)
      Barred liquor in NYC during the summer of 1895 while he was Police
      COmmissioner (Conservative-reactionary--I don't fully understand why he
      did this!!!)
      Did not swear (Conservative)
      Travelled all over the country (Progressive)
      Owned a cattle ranch (Conservative/Progressive)
      Tried to uphold McKinley's policies as a student of Elihu Root (old-boy
      onservative)
      Then went way beyond McKinley's policies (Progressive/Radical)

      all this, just to name a few! John, you could write a book on this, with
      a chapter on how he was conservative, liberal, progressive, & radical.

      Maybe it could be summed up in 1 word: he was a TR-Progressive!
      Definitely in a class by himself--I wouldn't nail him to any 1 category.
      Have fun!

      Linda Shookster


      Had a large family (?Liberal--this disgusted Henry Cabot Lodge!)




      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: John A. Gable
      > To: tr-m@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:07 PM
      > Subject: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?
      >
      >
      > How Best to
      > Characterize TR?
      >
      > David H. Burton in one of his thoughtful books, Theodore
      > Roosevelt, American Politician, An Assessment (Farleigh
      > Dickinson University Press, 1997), on p. 104, calls
      > Theodore Roosevelt a "conservative progressive." Richard
      > Hofstadter and some others have seen TR as a
      > "pseudo-progressive," a basically conservative thinker who
      > had to posture and pose as a progressive at times for
      > political reasons. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has again
      > and again made it clear that he sees TR as a modern
      > liberal in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and
      > recently James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn , in The
      > Three Roosevelts, have basically agreed with that view .
      > Kathleen Dalton sees TR as increasingly radical as time
      > went on. John M. Blum , back in the 1950s in The
      > Republican Roosevelt, called TR a conservative. But that
      > label was much debated at the time. Libertarians at the
      > Cato Institute these days agree that TR was a radical, and
      > hate him for it. A book soon to be published will portray
      > TR as the great proponent and hero of the center. Where
      > do you think Jim Strock stands on this question ? Where
      > do you think Edmund Morris comes out on this question ? TR
      > characterized himself differently at various times.
      >
      > This group consists of people who have read a great deal about and
      > by Theodore Roosevelt, and I would like to know what you think
      > about all of this. People are always asking me about this
      > subject, or often simply telling me what TR was/is, a
      > conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a radical. What do each of
      > you think ?
      >
      > Foreign policy complicates this question, don't you think ? Maybe
      > we should consider the question only from the standpoint of
      > domestic policy. For certainly the first half of the twentieth
      > century, the main split was between internationalists (of
      > various kinds) versus isolationists (ranging from pacifists to
      > nativists to anti-imperialists). And the split between
      > internationalists and isolationists was NOT drawn on the same
      > lines as the liberal-progressive/ conservative split. Bob
      > LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, William E. Borah, all domestic
      > liberals, all isolationists; while we find that conservatives
      > Elihu Root and William Howard Taft were internationalists, as
      > were progressives Gifford Pinchot, Miles Poindexter, Henry L.
      > Stimson, Harold Ickes, etc. Foreign policy before 1950 was often
      > highly regional. Anyway, what I am talking about above is
      > mainly domestic policy, but of course anyone is free to add
      > foreign policy to the equation.
      >
      > I hope to hear what everyone on this list has to say about what
      > is a very important topic.
      >
      > John Gable over in Oyster Bay
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Aaron Bangor
      I was giving this some thought and I recalled a line in a book I finished reading last month. In Scarlett (the sequel to Gone with the Wind) Rhett tells
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I was giving this some thought and I recalled a line in a book I finished
        reading last month. In "Scarlett" (the sequel to Gone with the Wind) Rhett
        tells Scarlett, "the world is where we belong, all of it.... We're the
        adventurers, the buccaneers, the blockade runners. Without challenge,
        we're only half alive." In a way, this includes TR too. TR sought to
        overcome the challenges of his body, of Nature, and ultimately of American
        society and the world. Straining for these challenges is when he felt the
        most alive, the most "bully!" For many challenges he sought to change
        things and this, at least literally, makes him a "liberal." Whether that
        would make him politically liberal in the present day is something I'll get
        to in a bit.

        This passion to seek out all forms of challenges and put unbounded energy
        behind an effort to overcome them is probably the trait I most admire about
        TR. It's really an apolitical characteristic. I also think recognizing
        this trait makes it easier to reconcile his domestic and foreign
        policies. In both fields he preferred to devote his energy toward great
        challenges, especially those where his shear force of will could be the
        deciding factor. I think this also helps explain why he could win both the
        Nobel Peace prize and the Medal of Honor.

        This isn't to say that TR just picked whatever challenge was
        convenient. His Square Deal and his moralizing are well known. He didn't
        want change for change's sake. But it does suggest that he wanted/needed
        the thrill of an adventurer and its accompanying challenges in order to
        feel wholly alive. So regardless of the era he lived in, he would do the
        same, and likely find those endeavors where he could make a difference
        personally. He would need to be in the Arena.

        Today I think TR would still be out to change things, but in and of itself,
        change isn't monopolized by political liberals. Certainly political
        conservatives have changes they'd like to see too. But I don't think TR
        would fit into either of these molds since the whole world belonged to his
        prowess, not one part of it. He would baffle conventional wisdom as much
        today as a hundred years ago. The one contemporary issue I think he would
        most likely be spear-heading is Mideast Peace. I think it would strongly
        appeal to his sense of history and race. I also think he would be an
        advocate for space exploration -- after all, he was the first President to
        go underwater in a submarine and the first ex-President to get into an
        airplane. I don't think he'd be a general advocate for the environment
        like he once was since this has become so trendy -- there's no challenge to
        it, but he probably would pick some specific issue, such as the American
        bison. Additionally, he very well may be for expanding the progressive
        income tax (malefactors of great wealth), but may also be president of the
        NRA (Boone & Crockett Club). If these topics seem all over the place
        that's a good thing; I think TR would be all over the political spectrum
        too. He may find the ultimate challenge in abandoning the Republican Party
        and piecing together the Reform Party. Some might call that evidence that
        he's a liberal, but I see it much more as a political Matterhorn.

        Aaron Bangor, Ph.D., AHFP


        At 06:07 PM 7/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
        > How Best to Characterize TR?
        >
        > David H. Burton in one of his thoughtful books, Theodore
        > Roosevelt, American Politician, An Assessment (Farleigh Dickinson
        > University Press, 1997), on p. 104, calls Theodore Roosevelt a
        > "conservative progressive." Richard Hofstadter and some others have seen
        > TR as a "pseudo-progressive," a basically conservative thinker who had to
        > posture and pose as a progressive at times for political reasons. Arthur
        > M. Schlesinger, Jr. has again and again made it clear that he sees TR as
        > a modern liberal in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and recently
        > James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn , in The Three Roosevelts, have
        > basically agreed with that view . Kathleen Dalton sees TR as increasingly
        > radical as time went on. John M. Blum , back in the 1950s in The
        > Republican Roosevelt, called TR a conservative. But that label was much
        > debated at the time. Libertarians at the Cato Institute these days agree
        > that TR was a radical, and hate him for it. A book soon to be published
        > will portray TR as the great proponent and hero of the center. Where do
        > you think Jim Strock stands on this question ? Where do you think Edmund
        > Morris comes out on this question ? TR characterized himself differently
        > at various times.
        >
        > This group consists of people who have read a great deal about and by
        > Theodore Roosevelt, and I would like to know what you think about all of
        > this. People are always asking me about this subject, or often simply
        > telling me what TR was/is, a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a
        > radical. What do each of you think ?
        >
        > Foreign policy complicates this question, don't you think ? Maybe we
        > should consider the question only from the standpoint of domestic policy.
        > For certainly the first half of the twentieth century, the main split was
        > between internationalists (of various kinds) versus
        > isolationists (ranging from pacifists to nativists to
        > anti-imperialists). And the split between internationalists and
        > isolationists was NOT drawn on the same lines as the liberal-progressive/
        > conservative split. Bob LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, William E. Borah, all
        > domestic liberals, all isolationists; while we find that conservatives
        > Elihu Root and William Howard Taft were internationalists, as were
        > progressives Gifford Pinchot, Miles Poindexter, Henry L. Stimson, Harold
        > Ickes, etc. Foreign policy before 1950 was often highly regional.
        > Anyway, what I am talking about above is mainly domestic policy, but of
        > course anyone is free to add foreign policy to the equation.
        >
        > I hope to hear what everyone on this list has to say about what is a
        > very important topic.
        >
        > John Gable over in Oyster Bay
      • todd larmer
        ok. i have held back this response for as long as possible! in my mind, the value of studying TR at this point in our history is that he is an example that you
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ok. i have held back this response for as long as possible!

          in my mind, the value of studying TR at this point in our history is that he
          is an example that you can be a Progressive who is strong on rights of
          labor, the environment, education, etc. as well as aggressive on foreign
          affairs . . . all WITHOUT succumbing to the more pernicious aspects of
          political correctness.

          todd larmer

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Aaron Bangor" <abangor@...>
          To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:01 PM
          Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?


          > I was giving this some thought and I recalled a line in a book I finished
          > reading last month. In "Scarlett" (the sequel to Gone with the Wind)
          Rhett
          > tells Scarlett, "the world is where we belong, all of it.... We're the
          > adventurers, the buccaneers, the blockade runners. Without challenge,
          > we're only half alive." In a way, this includes TR too. TR sought to
          > overcome the challenges of his body, of Nature, and ultimately of American
          > society and the world. Straining for these challenges is when he felt the
          > most alive, the most "bully!" For many challenges he sought to change
          > things and this, at least literally, makes him a "liberal." Whether that
          > would make him politically liberal in the present day is something I'll
          get
          > to in a bit.
          >
          > This passion to seek out all forms of challenges and put unbounded energy
          > behind an effort to overcome them is probably the trait I most admire
          about
          > TR. It's really an apolitical characteristic. I also think recognizing
          > this trait makes it easier to reconcile his domestic and foreign
          > policies. In both fields he preferred to devote his energy toward great
          > challenges, especially those where his shear force of will could be the
          > deciding factor. I think this also helps explain why he could win both
          the
          > Nobel Peace prize and the Medal of Honor.
          >
          > This isn't to say that TR just picked whatever challenge was
          > convenient. His Square Deal and his moralizing are well known. He didn't
          > want change for change's sake. But it does suggest that he wanted/needed
          > the thrill of an adventurer and its accompanying challenges in order to
          > feel wholly alive. So regardless of the era he lived in, he would do the
          > same, and likely find those endeavors where he could make a difference
          > personally. He would need to be in the Arena.
          >
          > Today I think TR would still be out to change things, but in and of
          itself,
          > change isn't monopolized by political liberals. Certainly political
          > conservatives have changes they'd like to see too. But I don't think TR
          > would fit into either of these molds since the whole world belonged to his
          > prowess, not one part of it. He would baffle conventional wisdom as much
          > today as a hundred years ago. The one contemporary issue I think he would
          > most likely be spear-heading is Mideast Peace. I think it would strongly
          > appeal to his sense of history and race. I also think he would be an
          > advocate for space exploration -- after all, he was the first President to
          > go underwater in a submarine and the first ex-President to get into an
          > airplane. I don't think he'd be a general advocate for the environment
          > like he once was since this has become so trendy -- there's no challenge
          to
          > it, but he probably would pick some specific issue, such as the American
          > bison. Additionally, he very well may be for expanding the progressive
          > income tax (malefactors of great wealth), but may also be president of the
          > NRA (Boone & Crockett Club). If these topics seem all over the place
          > that's a good thing; I think TR would be all over the political spectrum
          > too. He may find the ultimate challenge in abandoning the Republican
          Party
          > and piecing together the Reform Party. Some might call that evidence that
          > he's a liberal, but I see it much more as a political Matterhorn.
          >
          > Aaron Bangor, Ph.D., AHFP
          >
          >
          > At 06:07 PM 7/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
          > > How Best to
          Characterize TR?
          > >
          > > David H. Burton in one of his thoughtful books, Theodore
          > > Roosevelt, American Politician, An Assessment (Farleigh Dickinson
          > > University Press, 1997), on p. 104, calls Theodore Roosevelt a
          > > "conservative progressive." Richard Hofstadter and some others have
          seen
          > > TR as a "pseudo-progressive," a basically conservative thinker who had
          to
          > > posture and pose as a progressive at times for political reasons.
          Arthur
          > > M. Schlesinger, Jr. has again and again made it clear that he sees TR as
          > > a modern liberal in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and recently
          > > James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn , in The Three Roosevelts, have
          > > basically agreed with that view . Kathleen Dalton sees TR as
          increasingly
          > > radical as time went on. John M. Blum , back in the 1950s in The
          > > Republican Roosevelt, called TR a conservative. But that label was much
          > > debated at the time. Libertarians at the Cato Institute these days agree
          > > that TR was a radical, and hate him for it. A book soon to be published
          > > will portray TR as the great proponent and hero of the center. Where
          do
          > > you think Jim Strock stands on this question ? Where do you think
          Edmund
          > > Morris comes out on this question ? TR characterized himself differently
          > > at various times.
          > >
          > > This group consists of people who have read a great deal about and
          by
          > > Theodore Roosevelt, and I would like to know what you think about all of
          > > this. People are always asking me about this subject, or often simply
          > > telling me what TR was/is, a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a
          > > radical. What do each of you think ?
          > >
          > > Foreign policy complicates this question, don't you think ? Maybe
          we
          > > should consider the question only from the standpoint of domestic
          policy.
          > > For certainly the first half of the twentieth century, the main split
          was
          > > between internationalists (of various kinds) versus
          > > isolationists (ranging from pacifists to nativists to
          > > anti-imperialists). And the split between internationalists and
          > > isolationists was NOT drawn on the same lines as the
          liberal-progressive/
          > > conservative split. Bob LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, William E. Borah,
          all
          > > domestic liberals, all isolationists; while we find that conservatives
          > > Elihu Root and William Howard Taft were internationalists, as were
          > > progressives Gifford Pinchot, Miles Poindexter, Henry L. Stimson, Harold
          > > Ickes, etc. Foreign policy before 1950 was often highly regional.
          > > Anyway, what I am talking about above is mainly domestic policy, but
          of
          > > course anyone is free to add foreign policy to the equation.
          > >
          > > I hope to hear what everyone on this list has to say about what is
          a
          > > very important topic.
          > >
          > > John Gable over in Oyster Bay
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • John A. Gable
          Todd s response, at least to me, was well worth waiting for! No need for anybody to hold back. John ... From: todd larmer To:
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd's response, at least to me, was well worth waiting for! No need for
            anybody to hold back.
            John
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "todd larmer" <epic610@...>
            To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:15 PM
            Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?


            > ok. i have held back this response for as long as possible!
            >
            > in my mind, the value of studying TR at this point in our history is that
            he
            > is an example that you can be a Progressive who is strong on rights of
            > labor, the environment, education, etc. as well as aggressive on foreign
            > affairs . . . all WITHOUT succumbing to the more pernicious aspects of
            > political correctness.
            >
            > todd larmer
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Aaron Bangor" <abangor@...>
            > To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:01 PM
            > Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?
            >
            >
            > > I was giving this some thought and I recalled a line in a book I
            finished
            > > reading last month. In "Scarlett" (the sequel to Gone with the Wind)
            > Rhett
            > > tells Scarlett, "the world is where we belong, all of it.... We're the
            > > adventurers, the buccaneers, the blockade runners. Without challenge,
            > > we're only half alive." In a way, this includes TR too. TR sought to
            > > overcome the challenges of his body, of Nature, and ultimately of
            American
            > > society and the world. Straining for these challenges is when he felt
            the
            > > most alive, the most "bully!" For many challenges he sought to change
            > > things and this, at least literally, makes him a "liberal." Whether
            that
            > > would make him politically liberal in the present day is something I'll
            > get
            > > to in a bit.
            > >
            > > This passion to seek out all forms of challenges and put unbounded
            energy
            > > behind an effort to overcome them is probably the trait I most admire
            > about
            > > TR. It's really an apolitical characteristic. I also think recognizing
            > > this trait makes it easier to reconcile his domestic and foreign
            > > policies. In both fields he preferred to devote his energy toward great
            > > challenges, especially those where his shear force of will could be the
            > > deciding factor. I think this also helps explain why he could win both
            > the
            > > Nobel Peace prize and the Medal of Honor.
            > >
            > > This isn't to say that TR just picked whatever challenge was
            > > convenient. His Square Deal and his moralizing are well known. He
            didn't
            > > want change for change's sake. But it does suggest that he
            wanted/needed
            > > the thrill of an adventurer and its accompanying challenges in order to
            > > feel wholly alive. So regardless of the era he lived in, he would do
            the
            > > same, and likely find those endeavors where he could make a difference
            > > personally. He would need to be in the Arena.
            > >
            > > Today I think TR would still be out to change things, but in and of
            > itself,
            > > change isn't monopolized by political liberals. Certainly political
            > > conservatives have changes they'd like to see too. But I don't think TR
            > > would fit into either of these molds since the whole world belonged to
            his
            > > prowess, not one part of it. He would baffle conventional wisdom as
            much
            > > today as a hundred years ago. The one contemporary issue I think he
            would
            > > most likely be spear-heading is Mideast Peace. I think it would
            strongly
            > > appeal to his sense of history and race. I also think he would be an
            > > advocate for space exploration -- after all, he was the first President
            to
            > > go underwater in a submarine and the first ex-President to get into an
            > > airplane. I don't think he'd be a general advocate for the environment
            > > like he once was since this has become so trendy -- there's no challenge
            > to
            > > it, but he probably would pick some specific issue, such as the American
            > > bison. Additionally, he very well may be for expanding the progressive
            > > income tax (malefactors of great wealth), but may also be president of
            the
            > > NRA (Boone & Crockett Club). If these topics seem all over the place
            > > that's a good thing; I think TR would be all over the political
            spectrum
            > > too. He may find the ultimate challenge in abandoning the Republican
            > Party
            > > and piecing together the Reform Party. Some might call that evidence
            that
            > > he's a liberal, but I see it much more as a political Matterhorn.
            > >
            > > Aaron Bangor, Ph.D., AHFP
            > >
            > >
            > > At 06:07 PM 7/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
            > > > How Best to
            > Characterize TR?
            > > >
            > > > David H. Burton in one of his thoughtful books, Theodore
            > > > Roosevelt, American Politician, An Assessment (Farleigh Dickinson
            > > > University Press, 1997), on p. 104, calls Theodore Roosevelt a
            > > > "conservative progressive." Richard Hofstadter and some others have
            > seen
            > > > TR as a "pseudo-progressive," a basically conservative thinker who had
            > to
            > > > posture and pose as a progressive at times for political reasons.
            > Arthur
            > > > M. Schlesinger, Jr. has again and again made it clear that he sees TR
            as
            > > > a modern liberal in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and
            recently
            > > > James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn , in The Three Roosevelts, have
            > > > basically agreed with that view . Kathleen Dalton sees TR as
            > increasingly
            > > > radical as time went on. John M. Blum , back in the 1950s in The
            > > > Republican Roosevelt, called TR a conservative. But that label was
            much
            > > > debated at the time. Libertarians at the Cato Institute these days
            agree
            > > > that TR was a radical, and hate him for it. A book soon to be
            published
            > > > will portray TR as the great proponent and hero of the center. Where
            > do
            > > > you think Jim Strock stands on this question ? Where do you think
            > Edmund
            > > > Morris comes out on this question ? TR characterized himself
            differently
            > > > at various times.
            > > >
            > > > This group consists of people who have read a great deal about and
            > by
            > > > Theodore Roosevelt, and I would like to know what you think about all
            of
            > > > this. People are always asking me about this subject, or often simply
            > > > telling me what TR was/is, a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a
            > > > radical. What do each of you think ?
            > > >
            > > > Foreign policy complicates this question, don't you think ? Maybe
            > we
            > > > should consider the question only from the standpoint of domestic
            > policy.
            > > > For certainly the first half of the twentieth century, the main split
            > was
            > > > between internationalists (of various kinds) versus
            > > > isolationists (ranging from pacifists to nativists to
            > > > anti-imperialists). And the split between internationalists and
            > > > isolationists was NOT drawn on the same lines as the
            > liberal-progressive/
            > > > conservative split. Bob LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, William E. Borah,
            > all
            > > > domestic liberals, all isolationists; while we find that conservatives
            > > > Elihu Root and William Howard Taft were internationalists, as were
            > > > progressives Gifford Pinchot, Miles Poindexter, Henry L. Stimson,
            Harold
            > > > Ickes, etc. Foreign policy before 1950 was often highly regional.
            > > > Anyway, what I am talking about above is mainly domestic policy, but
            > of
            > > > course anyone is free to add foreign policy to the equation.
            > > >
            > > > I hope to hear what everyone on this list has to say about what
            is
            > a
            > > > very important topic.
            > > >
            > > > John Gable over in Oyster Bay
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • TRA
            Just to clear up a point - TR did not bar liquor in NYC while he was Police Commissioner. There was a law in NYC that bars were to be closed on Sundays, which
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 16, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to clear up a point - TR did not bar liquor in NYC while he was Police
              Commissioner. There was a law in NYC that bars were to be closed on
              Sundays, which most people ignored. He enforced the law, which proved very
              unpopular. At the time the work week was six days long. Most working
              people were off only on Sundays and looked forward to stopping by the local
              tavern for a few drinks with friends.

              On another note, Yellowstone is the first National Park, created by
              President Ulysses S. Grant. TR designated the Grand Canyon. He actually
              designated the sides as a National Monument because of the natural beauty
              (one layer of rock, the Vishnu Schist, is over 2 billion years old), and the
              rim (top) as a wildlife refuge (there are some species particular to that
              area - there is a different sub-species of the Kaibab squirrel on either
              side of the Canyon).

              Linda Milano

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <mrmoose@...>
              To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:21 AM
              Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?


              > This is a complex & most interesting question! TR upheld Judeo-Christian
              > ethics, being a Church-going Christian & reading the Bible at night, at
              > least while he was married to Alice Lee. Those of us who still hold
              > Judeo-Christian ethics, which are rapidly becoming outmoded with today's
              > Post-Modernism, still grapple with this question. The answer is: all of
              > the above!!!
              >
              > If you look at TR's life & career, he
              > upheld family values (Conservative),
              > lobbied against Trusts (Liberal),
              > ended the near-Coal Stike of 1902 with benefits for the miners (Liberal),
              > invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House (Radical),
              > built a strong Navy (Conservative),
              > was a Conservationist (?Progressive),
              > hunted game (Conservative),
              > wanted a Square Deal for all (Liberal-Progressive),
              > was a member of NYC elite Clubs (Conservative), yet was friendly with some
              > people such as Booker T. Washington & chummy with journalists such as
              > Jacob Riis (Liberal/Radical)
              > felt guilty about a second marriage (Conservative to the point of being
              > reactionary!!!)
              > Loved new inventions & lobbied for them (Progressive)
              > Barred liquor in NYC during the summer of 1895 while he was Police
              > Commissioner (Conservative-reactionary--I don't fully understand why he
              > did this!!!)
              > Did not swear (Conservative)
              > Travelled all over the country (Progressive)
              > Owned a cattle ranch (Conservative/Progressive)
              > Tried to uphold McKinley's policies as a student of Elihu Root (old-boy
              > Conservative)
              > Then went way beyond McKinley's policies (Progressive/Radical)
              >
              > all this, just to name a few! John, you could write a book on this, with
              > a chapter on how he was conservative, liberal, progressive, & radical.
              >
              > Maybe it could be summed up in 1 word: he was a TR-Progressive!
              > Definitely in a class by himself--I wouldn't nail him to any 1 category.
              > Have fun!
              >
              > Linda Shookster
              >
              >
              > Had a large family (?Liberal--this disgusted Henry Cabot Lodge!)
            • mrmoose@pol.net
              Thanks, Linda! That was posted July 3rd, but didn t reach the Internet for 2 weeks! Snail-mail may have been faster! I just see that I wrote that TR barred
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 16, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks, Linda! That was posted July 3rd, but didn't reach the Internet
                for 2 weeks! Snail-mail may have been faster!

                I just see that I wrote that TR barred liquor; sorry, I meant he enforced
                the law prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sun's. I can't understand
                exactly why he strictly enforced that law. Do you have any good
                explanation?

                Linda Shookster



                > Just to clear up a point - TR did not bar liquor in NYC while he was
                > Police Commissioner. There was a law in NYC that bars were to be closed
                > on Sundays, which most people ignored. He enforced the law, which
                > proved very unpopular. At the time the work week was six days long.
                > Most working people were off only on Sundays and looked forward to
                > stopping by the local tavern for a few drinks with friends.
                >
                > On another note, Yellowstone is the first National Park, created by
                > President Ulysses S. Grant. TR designated the Grand Canyon. He
                > actually designated the sides as a National Monument because of the
                > natural beauty (one layer of rock, the Vishnu Schist, is over 2 billion
                > years old), and the rim (top) as a wildlife refuge (there are some
                > species particular to that area - there is a different sub-species of
                > the Kaibab squirrel on either side of the Canyon).
                >
                > Linda Milano
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: <mrmoose@...>
                > To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:21 AM
                > Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?
                >
                >
                >> This is a complex & most interesting question! TR upheld
                >> Judeo-Christian ethics, being a Church-going Christian & reading the
                >> Bible at night, at least while he was married to Alice Lee. Those of
                >> us who still hold Judeo-Christian ethics, which are rapidly becoming
                >> outmoded with today's Post-Modernism, still grapple with this
                >> question. The answer is: all of the above!!!
                >>
                >> If you look at TR's life & career, he
                >> upheld family values (Conservative),
                >> lobbied against Trusts (Liberal),
                >> ended the near-Coal Stike of 1902 with benefits for the miners
                >> (Liberal), invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House
                >> (Radical), built a strong Navy (Conservative),
                >> was a Conservationist (?Progressive),
                >> hunted game (Conservative),
                >> wanted a Square Deal for all (Liberal-Progressive),
                >> was a member of NYC elite Clubs (Conservative), yet was friendly with
                >> some people such as Booker T. Washington & chummy with journalists
                >> such as Jacob Riis (Liberal/Radical)
                >> felt guilty about a second marriage (Conservative to the point of
                >> being reactionary!!!)
                >> Loved new inventions & lobbied for them (Progressive)
                >> Barred liquor in NYC during the summer of 1895 while he was Police
                >> Commissioner (Conservative-reactionary--I don't fully understand why
                >> he did this!!!)
                >> Did not swear (Conservative)
                >> Travelled all over the country (Progressive)
                >> Owned a cattle ranch (Conservative/Progressive)
                >> Tried to uphold McKinley's policies as a student of Elihu Root
                >> (old-boy Conservative)
                >> Then went way beyond McKinley's policies (Progressive/Radical)
                >>
                >> all this, just to name a few! John, you could write a book on this,
                >> with a chapter on how he was conservative, liberal, progressive, &
                >> radical.
                >>
                >> Maybe it could be summed up in 1 word: he was a TR-Progressive!
                >> Definitely in a class by himself--I wouldn't nail him to any 1
                >> category. Have fun!
                >>
                >> Linda Shookster
                >>
                >>
                >> Had a large family (?Liberal--this disgusted Henry Cabot Lodge!)
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
                > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • John A. Gable
                A couple of comments. TR banned booze on Sundays (only) in the summer of 1895 because it was against the law, and being in charge of the police he believed he
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 17, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  A couple of comments. TR banned booze on Sundays (only) in the summer of
                  1895 because it was against the law, and being in charge of the police he
                  believed he had to enforce the law! This was a novel view, and could be
                  classed as reformist. TR opposed birth control, and this is conservative. A
                  large Navy and a proper defense is not something I regard as "conservative."
                  The term belongs largely (not entirely) to domestic politics and much less
                  to defense and foreign policy. Among the liberals who have favored a strong
                  Navy and defense policy are Gifford Pinchot, Charles J.Bonaparte (sometime
                  Sec. of the Navy), Henry L. Stimson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman,
                  John F. Kennedy, LBJ, etc. The idea of TR as unique is, I think, on the
                  mark; but he held no view that I can think of that was not held by many
                  other people who can be classified as conservative or liberal.
                  TR called himself different things at different times, and I think
                  next we need to consider what he said about himself on this question of
                  liberal/progressive/conservative.
                  John Gable in Oyster Bay
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <mrmoose@...>
                  To: <tr-m@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:21 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?


                  > This is a complex & most interesting question! TR upheld Judeo-Christian
                  > ethics, being a Church-going Christian & reading the Bible at night, at
                  > least while he was married to Alice Lee. Those of us who still hold
                  > Judeo-Christian ethics, which are rapidly becoming outmoded with today's
                  > Post-Modernism, still grapple with this question. The answer is: all of
                  > the above!!!
                  >
                  > If you look at TR's life & career, he
                  > upheld family values (Conservative),
                  > lobbied against Trusts (Liberal),
                  > ended the near-Coal Stike of 1902 with benefits for the miners (Liberal),
                  > invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House (Radical),
                  > built a strong Navy (Conservative),
                  > was a Conservationist (?Progressive),
                  > hunted game (Conservative),
                  > wanted a Square Deal for all (Liberal-Progressive),
                  > was a member of NYC elite Clubs (Conservative), yet was friendly with some
                  > people such as Booker T. Washington & chummy with journalists such as
                  > Jacob Riis (Liberal/Radical)
                  > felt guilty about a second marriage (Conservative to the point of being
                  > reactionary!!!)
                  > Loved new inventions & lobbied for them (Progressive)
                  > Barred liquor in NYC during the summer of 1895 while he was Police
                  > COmmissioner (Conservative-reactionary--I don't fully understand why he
                  > did this!!!)
                  > Did not swear (Conservative)
                  > Travelled all over the country (Progressive)
                  > Owned a cattle ranch (Conservative/Progressive)
                  > Tried to uphold McKinley's policies as a student of Elihu Root (old-boy
                  > onservative)
                  > Then went way beyond McKinley's policies (Progressive/Radical)
                  >
                  > all this, just to name a few! John, you could write a book on this, with
                  > a chapter on how he was conservative, liberal, progressive, & radical.
                  >
                  > Maybe it could be summed up in 1 word: he was a TR-Progressive!
                  > Definitely in a class by himself--I wouldn't nail him to any 1 category.
                  > Have fun!
                  >
                  > Linda Shookster
                  >
                  >
                  > Had a large family (?Liberal--this disgusted Henry Cabot Lodge!)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: John A. Gable
                  > > To: tr-m@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:07 PM
                  > > Subject: [tr-m] How best to characterize TR ?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > How Best to
                  > > Characterize TR?
                  > >
                  > > David H. Burton in one of his thoughtful books, Theodore
                  > > Roosevelt, American Politician, An Assessment (Farleigh
                  > > Dickinson University Press, 1997), on p. 104, calls
                  > > Theodore Roosevelt a "conservative progressive." Richard
                  > > Hofstadter and some others have seen TR as a
                  > > "pseudo-progressive," a basically conservative thinker who
                  > > had to posture and pose as a progressive at times for
                  > > political reasons. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has again
                  > > and again made it clear that he sees TR as a modern
                  > > liberal in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and
                  > > recently James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn , in The
                  > > Three Roosevelts, have basically agreed with that view .
                  > > Kathleen Dalton sees TR as increasingly radical as time
                  > > went on. John M. Blum , back in the 1950s in The
                  > > Republican Roosevelt, called TR a conservative. But that
                  > > label was much debated at the time. Libertarians at the
                  > > Cato Institute these days agree that TR was a radical, and
                  > > hate him for it. A book soon to be published will portray
                  > > TR as the great proponent and hero of the center. Where
                  > > do you think Jim Strock stands on this question ? Where
                  > > do you think Edmund Morris comes out on this question ? TR
                  > > characterized himself differently at various times.
                  > >
                  > > This group consists of people who have read a great deal about and
                  > > by Theodore Roosevelt, and I would like to know what you think
                  > > about all of this. People are always asking me about this
                  > > subject, or often simply telling me what TR was/is, a
                  > > conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a radical. What do each of
                  > > you think ?
                  > >
                  > > Foreign policy complicates this question, don't you think ? Maybe
                  > > we should consider the question only from the standpoint of
                  > > domestic policy. For certainly the first half of the twentieth
                  > > century, the main split was between internationalists (of
                  > > various kinds) versus isolationists (ranging from pacifists to
                  > > nativists to anti-imperialists). And the split between
                  > > internationalists and isolationists was NOT drawn on the same
                  > > lines as the liberal-progressive/ conservative split. Bob
                  > > LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, William E. Borah, all domestic
                  > > liberals, all isolationists; while we find that conservatives
                  > > Elihu Root and William Howard Taft were internationalists, as
                  > > were progressives Gifford Pinchot, Miles Poindexter, Henry L.
                  > > Stimson, Harold Ickes, etc. Foreign policy before 1950 was often
                  > > highly regional. Anyway, what I am talking about above is
                  > > mainly domestic policy, but of course anyone is free to add
                  > > foreign policy to the equation.
                  > >
                  > > I hope to hear what everyone on this list has to say about what
                  > > is a very important topic.
                  > >
                  > > John Gable over in Oyster Bay
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > > ADVERTISEMENT
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.