Teddy Roosevelt sides with Bernie against modern plutocrat Republicans

Craig234

Verified User
I have to say, Republican Teddy Roosevelt lays out the rights and wrong better than even today's progressives.

"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows."

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new."

"I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service. One word of warning, which, I think, is hardly necessary in Kansas. When I say I want a square deal for the poor man, I do not mean that I want a square deal for the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself. If a man who has had a chance will not make good, then he has got to quit."

"The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation…. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done…Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."

"The effort at prohibiting all combination has substantially failed. [This is a reference to the effort at 'trust-busting' that he inaugurated as president, but which he felt had not been pursued vigorously by his successor, William Howard Taft.] The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare.

"The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows…

"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered*— not gambling in stocks, but service rendered."

"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."

"The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good. The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Understand what I say there. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him. No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so after his day’s work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life by which we surround them. We need comprehensive workman’s compensation acts, both State and national laws to regulate child labor and work for women, and, especially, we need in our common schools not merely education in book-learning, but also practical training for daily life and work."

"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."

"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism. ... We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black...sevelts-attack-excessive-concentration-wealth
 
Last edited:
I have to say, Republican Teddy Roosevelt lays out the rights and wrong better than even today's progressives.

"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows."

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new."

"I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service. One word of warning, which, I think, is hardly necessary in Kansas. When I say I want a square deal for the poor man, I do not mean that I want a square deal for the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself. If a man who has had a chance will not make good, then he has got to quit."

"The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation…. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done…Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."

"The effort at prohibiting all combination has substantially failed. [This is a reference to the effort at 'trust-busting' that he inaugurated as president, but which he felt had not been pursued vigorously by his successor, William Howard Taft.] The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare.

"The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows…

"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered*— not gambling in stocks, but service rendered."

"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."

"The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good. The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Understand what I say there. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him. No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so after his day’s work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life by which we surround them. We need comprehensive workman’s compensation acts, both State and national laws to regulate child labor and work for women, and, especially, we need in our common schools not merely education in book-learning, but also practical training for daily life and work."

"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."

"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism. ... We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black...sevelts-attack-excessive-concentration-wealth

sounds like a condemnation of today's Demmcrats......
 
You're a clueless cult member of the pro-plutocrat cult, fighting for the public to be poorer.

No, I oppose all progressives. That is what Teddy Roosevelt was, a liberal progressive. That he called himself a Republican for political expedience is of no consequence to me. I apologize if I am better versed in history than you are
 
"The effort at prohibiting all combination has substantially failed. [This is a reference to the effort at 'trust-busting' that he inaugurated as president, but which he felt had not been pursued vigorously by his successor, William Howard Taft.] The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare.

Taft busted more trusts than Teddy did, so, I don't know what he had to complain about.
 
No, I oppose all progressives. That is what Teddy Roosevelt was, a liberal progressive. That he called himself a Republican for political expedience is of no consequence to me. I apologize if I am better versed in history than you are

You don't show yourself versed at all.


You don't understand the parties changed - that the Republicans weren't always the plutocrats they are now, having been taken over. You'd call him a RINO, when the plutocrats today are the RINOS.
 
Taft busted more trusts than Teddy did, so, I don't know what he had to complain about.

Taft failed to stand up to corporate abuses the way Teddy had wanted - which is why Teddy ran against him to split the Republican vote and let the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, win.
 
Taft failed to stand up to corporate abuses the way Teddy had wanted - which is why Teddy ran against him to split the Republican vote and let the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, win.

And Teddy was wrong. Taft accomplished more (as a progressive president) in four years than either Teddy or Wilson (who is credited with killing the progressive era) did in eight, to include the sheer volume of trust-busting.
 
And Teddy was wrong. Taft accomplished more (as a progressive president) in four years than either Teddy or Wilson (who is credited with killing the progressive era) did in eight, to include the sheer volume of trust-busting.

Well thanks for the accurate history on the number of trusts busted - but Teddy felt that Taft had nonetheless 'switched sides' to the pro-business side rather than the progressive side. As the Saturday Evening Post said:

Roosevelt soon grew disenchanted with his heir as Taft withdrew support from progressive Republicans in Congress and from several of Roosevelt’s initiatives. The worst offense came in 1910 after Taft put some land marked for conservation back into the hands of private developers. Gifford Pinchot, head of the U.S. Forest Service, publicly criticized Taft’s action. Taft fired Pinchot, who went straight to Roosevelt to complain.

Now Roosevelt was furious. He believed Taft had betrayed him and sold out the Progressive movement. In an interview with the Post (“Why Roosevelt Opposes Taft,” May 4, 1912), Roosevelt explained why he was now opposing his protégé in the race for the Republican nomination.

Mr. Taft was nominated for president … because of his outspoken endorsement of progressive policies. Opposed to these policies … were the Reactionaries. … Without a single exception these men are supporting Mr. Taft today—supporting him openly and with every political trick at their command. They are entirely in accord with his record in the presidency. … Have the Reactionaries become Progressives or has Mr. Taft turned Reactionary? I leave it to the people to judge.
 
Roosevelt was a the "trust buster'. he fought to keep America fair for all. He installed the estate tax warning us that money passed on through generations was a threat to the American system. He was very wealthy.
 
He was a liberal. You can have him


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Concur.
Teddy Roosevelt is easily within the top five presidents, and his progressive legacy plants him firmly in the liberal tradition.

To me it was always striking that Ronald Reagan choose Calvin Coolidge for the official white house portrait on display. Not Teddy Roosevelt. Not Lincoln. Not Eisenhower.

Freakin' Calvin Coolidge.

The party of Ronald Reagan looks with disdain on progressive republicans, and idolized the lassaize-faire law of the jungle capitalism epitomized metaphorically by Coolidge.

There you have it folks. Lincoln, Eisenhower, and T.R. are mortal enemies of today's movement conservatives, Trumpettes, and other assorted and sundry teabaggers. Basically, the best Republican presidents ever have been rejected by conservatives in their own party. It is just freakishly weird, when you think about it!
 
Roosevelt was a the "trust buster'. he fought to keep America fair for all. He installed the estate tax warning us that money passed on through generations was a threat to the American system. He was very wealthy.

You are easily duped. Ever wonder why it is always these very rich upper crust types who rail against the estate tax AFTER they have achieved their wealth?

It is a ruse to make you think they care about you while they are merely imposing barriers to entry to the wealth attainment.

Liberals are so stupid. On one hand they rail against “the evil rich” yet slobber all over themeslves when rich people lie to them about wanting to pay higher taxes
 
You are easily duped. Ever wonder why it is always these very rich upper crust types who rail against the estate tax AFTER they have achieved their wealth?

It is a ruse to make you think they care about you while they are merely imposing barriers to entry to the wealth attainment.

Liberals are so stupid. On one hand they rail against “the evil rich” yet slobber all over themeslves when rich people lie to them about wanting to pay higher taxes

That is utter idiocy. It'd be like saying Mexico started WWII.

Goes to show, our public education system is failing some people - were you homeschooled?
 
Concur.
Teddy Roosevelt is easily within the top five presidents, and his progressive legacy plants him firmly in the liberal tradition.

To me it was always striking that Ronald Reagan choose Calvin Coolidge for the official white house portrait on display. Not Teddy Roosevelt. Not Lincoln. Not Eisenhower.

Freakin' Calvin Coolidge.

The party of Ronald Reagan looks with disdain on progressive republicans, and idolized the lassaize-faire law of the jungle capitalism epitomized metaphorically by Coolidge.

There you have it folks. Lincoln, Eisenhower, and T.R. are mortal enemies of today's movement conservatives, Trumpettes, and other assorted and sundry teabaggers. Basically, the best Republican presidents ever have been rejected by conservatives in their own party. It is just freakishly weird, when you think about it!

And Eisenhower is seriously overrated as a president. We'd have done a lot better with Adlai Stevenson.
 
Roosevelt was a the "trust buster'. he fought to keep America fair for all. He installed the estate tax warning us that money passed on through generations was a threat to the American system. He was very wealthy.

He was right then and he's right now. We need to greatly increase the estate tax for the benefit of everyone.
 
teddy was an american ho saw that not reining in the corporations and the wealthy was a serious threat to the country itself. He was a trust buster breaking up monopolies. He started the estate tax to slow down the growth of fabulous fortunes because he saw generational wealth would confiscate more wealth and power , then more wealth and power in the future. They were a threat to the system too. If you cared about America, you would be backing teddy.
 
teddy was an american ho saw that not reining in the corporations and the wealthy was a serious threat to the country itself. He was a trust buster breaking up monopolies. He started the estate tax to slow down the growth of fabulous fortunes because he saw generational wealth would confiscate more wealth and power , then more wealth and power in the future. They were a threat to the system too. If you cared about America, you would be backing teddy.

Well said.

And far truer today than then.
 
Back
Top