The Real TR: Liberal Progressive, Not Conservative

This past weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating portrait of the 'real' Teddy Roosevelt.

Ronald Pestritto, the Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College, as well as Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, reminds us that extreme liberalism and rewriting of the Constitution seemed to be a Roosevelt family objective and practice.

What is eye-opening is his opening passages, wherein he wonders why John McCain, Bill Kristol and Karl Rove all worship TR.

Pestritto notes,

"Progressives of both parties, including Roosevelt, were the original big-government liberals. They understood full well that the greatest obstacle to their schemes of social justice and equality of material condition was the U.S. Constitution. as it was originally written and understood: as creating a national government of limited, enumerated powers that was dedicated to securing the individual natural rights of its citizens, especially liberty of contract and private property.

It was the Republican TR, who insisted in his 1910 speech on the "New Nationalism" that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." He was at one here with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans' respect for their Constitution as "blind worship," and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its "preface" -- i.e., the part of it that establishes the protection of equal natural rights as the permanent task of government.

In his "Autobiography," Roosevelt wrote that he "declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it." The national government, in TR's view, was not one of enumerated powers but of general powers, and the purpose of the Constitution was merely to state the narrow exceptions to that rule."

Pestritto reminds us that Roosevelt ended up as a progressive, splitting from the Republicans when he ran for President on the Bull Moose ticket.

Pestritto further writes,

"This is a view of government directly opposed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84. Hamilton explains there that the fundamental difference between a republican constitution and a monarchic one is that the latter reserves some liberty for the people by stating specific exceptions to the assumed general power of the crown, whereas the former assumes from the beginning that the power of the people is the general rule, and the power of the government the exception.

TR turns this on its head. In his New Nationalism speech he noted how, in aiming to use state power to bring about economic equality, the government should permit a man to earn and keep his property "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." The government itself of course would determine what represented a benefit to the community, and whether society would be better off if an individual's wealth was transferred to somebody else.

Some conservatives today are misled by the battle between TR and Wilson in the 1912 presidential election. But Wilson implemented most of TR's program once he took office in 1913, including a progressive income tax and the establishment of several regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission."

This is really scary stuff. It's the sort of message Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano consistently delivers, both on air, and in editorials in the Journal. Commenting on the recent election, Pestritto observes,

"Many who respect individual liberty and the free market believe that the electoral tide has turned, and that an era of big government is inevitable. But recall that John McCain gained traction in the closing days of his campaign only when he attacked Mr. Obama's desire to "spread the wealth" through higher tax rates on the upper-income earners. His attack clearly resonated among the public. But it came too late, and truth be told, his heart wasn't really in it.

Looking ahead, conservatives hardly need to look back to progressives for inspiration. If there is a desire to "conserve" or restore something about our political tradition that has been lost with the rise of modern liberalism, how about the American founding as a model? It is with the founders that we can find the patriotic promotion of America as an exceptionally great nation -- a notion that attracts some conservatives to TR.

The difference is that, with the founders as a model, we get the idea of American greatness, but without the progressives' assault on the very enduring principles that justify America's claim to greatness in the first place."

The reason Pestritto's piece really grabbed me is the current rush to void Americans' sense of responsibility by bailing out anyone who entered into a losing contract involving mortgages. And, in a similar vein, the newly-elected First Rookie's misguided sense of fairness when he spoke to Bill O'Reilly about paying higher taxes so a coffee shop waitress could have more money.

America won't regain and retain its greatness so long as those in government continue to cling to the incorrect notion that everybody in America deserves to become wealthy, have high incomes, retire comfortably, etc.

The country was founded as a meritocracy. The whole point of the national experiment was to let people pursue their own dreams, succeeding or failing on their own merits, without anyone unduly constraining their efforts.

Now, we have a President-elect dedicated to the proposition that nobody should become wealthy unless the least-fortunate American does, too.

That just won't fly. We'll be France in less than a decade at this rate.

Let's be honest here. Not everyone is created equally in terms of mental acuity, common sense, or risk-taking attitude and personality. There will always be the 'less fortunate,' just as some will always be the wealthiest in our society. Ironically, it's the liberals' focus on economic welfare, rather than, as the Declaration of Independence states, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," that has led us into this quagmire.

Study after study shows that happiness is not related to economic success or wealth. But, by attempting to equate the two, liberals insist that we all have to enrich the least-intelligent, least-educated of our society, rather than simply help them be as happy as their talents and circumstances allow.

It's refreshing, in a fashion, to learn that this liberal line of thought began with Wilson, William Jennings Bryan and TR, who apparently were the first to launch concerted assaults on the original intent of our nation's founding principles, as expressed in two of our most sacred texts, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.