May 2, 2012 at 8:54 pm #15628KyhankoMember
First off, I am thoroughly enjoying all the content on this site – incredible presentations from an incredible group of people
One of the biggest argument’s I hear in favor of TR is that he was a “man of his time.” This phrase is thrown around regarding his land grab of the West. The typical understanding of this is that the “national treasures” were under threat of inevitable destruction to the greedy and careless profiteers and without federal protection from Roosevelt the land would have been decimated (according to one of my history professors in college and mainstream Republican friends).
What are some historical refutations to this idea? As well as simple arguments against the idea that a president needs to be a “man of his time,” and in doing so his actions are justified, no matter how unconstitutional.May 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm #15629woodsParticipant
Even though it’s written for a popular-level periodical, this article by Jim Powell has some useful ideas: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/theodore-roosevelt-big-government-man/
Powell goes into more detail, and assembles the various sources on this, in Bully Boy, his biography of TR.June 3, 2012 at 11:10 pm #15630
Seems to me that the progressive mind is of the “ends justify the means” mentality. The constitution be damned-there are just wars to fight and people that need our help!
Faux pragmatism-advance the agenda no matter the manner.
In more cases than not their bungling of the economy and war has been a disaster.June 11, 2012 at 12:27 am #15631
So, is it safe to say that the Progressive Era ushered in Progressiveness the most destructive ideology in American history and the cancer that’s been killing our nation ever since and still is to this very day. :-p 😮June 12, 2012 at 11:08 am #15632
That’s when it started in earnest 1900-1919 with Wilson’s “make the world safe for democracy” rationale for entering wwI , the creation of the fed, direct election of senators, creation of the IRS, league of nations, prohibition,national parksJune 18, 2012 at 12:23 am #15633
“direct election of senators”
I think I need some clarification. How is this bad?June 19, 2012 at 9:01 pm #15634
The direct election of senators takes away the states’ ability to be represented adequately. Prior to the 17th amendment the state legislatures elected the senators to represent them in the senate.
Now the senators can be lobbied easily and remain in power for 6 years representing mostly special interests on a national level rather than representing their states.
Here is just one article on the subject
http://mises.org/daily/533June 28, 2012 at 12:58 am #15635
Oh ok, Thanks! I feel this would have happened with or without the amendment, but I can see how it made it all the easier.July 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm #15636gutzmankParticipant
George Mason defended state governments’ power to elect senators as a self-defense mechanism. Once they were stripped of this power, there was no substantial check on the tendency of the Federal Government to usurp the reserved powers of the states — which they have done to their hearts’ content ever since. It’s hard to imagine a Senate whose members had to answer to state legislators adopting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for example.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.