Why the backlash against Theodore Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson in recent years?

[DevotedDemocrat]

I've noticed that there has been a big backlash in politics/revisionist history basically damning Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as horrible Presidents, demons even. Yet for decades Republicans--including Ronald Reagan--adored TR, and many on the Left and some on the Right admired Wilson (Nixon loved Wilson, Wilsonian foreign policy shaped the bulk of the 20th century). But in recent years there's been an almost total revision in opinions wherein these men are demonized, not so much for their politics, as for their personal characteristics (IE Wilson's racism).

But I do wonder if the demonization of TR and Wilson started with the Tea Party and has become simply now "accepted" as part of this country's hard rightward turn in the recent years?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

[Indy Texas]

The revised view of TR is probably due to two things:
(1) The fact that the modern Republican Party thinks the US would be a better country if the entire Progressive Movement had never occurred.
(2) The modern Democratic Party, while sympathetic to TR's reformist zeal and concern for the environment, is put off by the fact that the man was a horrid racist who more or less felt the US needed to engage in the sort of imperialism Europe was undertaking at the time, even moreso than we already were (in Cuba, Central America, etc).

[Maxwell]

Not everything stays still, peoples opinions change. Truman was dreadfully unpopular when he was President and a few years after that, now he's admired by a lot of people. You can't just be like Republicans don't like TR or Wilson, they must be revisionist kooks!

[courts]

correct. 'antiracism' (or posturing about 'race') amongst the 'social justice warriors' in the american left is huge. arguably even more of an obsession than the 'golden age' of the 1960s civil rights movement. and wilson is pretty much the most unapologetic white supremacist the us ever had as president.it would be strange if they did not try to challenge the long-held view amongst american liberals that he was 'one of the greats' (although the whole idea of historical 'great men' is a complete anachronism to the 'post-modern' & 'savvy' left to begin with).

[The Free North]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

Unless you were an anti-war supporter


In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

He was also vehemently anti-immigrant.

[Sol]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

Unless you were an anti-war supporter


In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

He was also vehemently anti-immigrant.

Not to mention racist.

[The Free North]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

Unless you were an anti-war supporter


In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

He was also vehemently anti-immigrant.

Not to mention racist.

That as well

[Indy Texas]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

Unless you were an anti-war supporter


In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

He was also vehemently anti-immigrant.

Not to mention racist.

Not much difference, as far as I'm concerned.

[Zioneer]

The revised view of TR is probably due to two things:
(1) The fact that the modern Republican Party thinks the US would be a better country if the entire Progressive Movement had never occurred.
(2) The modern Democratic Party, while sympathetic to TR's reformist zeal and concern for the environment, is put off by the fact that the man was a horrid racist who more or less felt the US needed to engage in the sort of imperialism Europe was undertaking at the time, even moreso than we already were (in Cuba, Central America, etc).

Basically, this. I do like TR's energy though, and wish that progressives today had that kind of zeal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

Unless you were an anti-war supporter


In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

He was also vehemently anti-immigrant.

Well, Johnson also passed a lot of progressive legislation, but wasn't so great on the anti-war front.

[H. Ross Peron]

Teddy Roosevelt hasn't suffered a backlash IMO and even Wilson's has been limited to far right circles and some internet message boards (notably here and AH. COM). Personally I find Wilson overrated since despite liking his liberal internationalism he was still backward on economic issues, actively promoted racist policies, and obsessed with self-determination when the preservation of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires (if possible) would have been far more preferable.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

[1] Admittedly this is less true of high-knowledge self-described progressives such as those found on the board.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

[minionofmidas]

Not only do we have a tendency to judge men by our own times' standard, on a crucial issue that attitudes have changed on (ie, open White racism against anybody else) both were below par even in their time.

[TNF]

correct. 'antiracism' (or posturing about 'race') amongst the 'social justice warriors' in the american left is huge. arguably even more of an obsession than the 'golden age' of the 1960s civil rights movement. and wilson is pretty much the most unapologetic white supremacist the us ever had as president.it would be strange if they did not try to challenge the long-held view amongst american liberals that he was 'one of the greats' (although the whole idea of historical 'great men' is a complete anachronism to the 'post-modern' & 'savvy' left to begin with).

[Cory]

Not to mention racist.

It was 1912, "everyone" was racist. Granted Wilson was a little over the top but still.

[ingemann]

In my eyes T. R. have simply grown into a historical version of the Chuck Norris meme, so some backlash was to be expected.

As for Wilson, he did some good things like giving women the right to vote, but it really don't make up for all the terrible things he did. At least not in my opinion.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In my eyes T. R. have simply grown into a historical version of the Chuck Norris meme, so some backlash was to be expected.

As for Wilson, he did some good things like giving women the right to vote, but it really don't make up for all the terrible things he did. At least not in my opinion.

How did Wilson give women the vote?  It was a constitutional amendment.

[minionofmidas]

In my eyes T. R. have simply grown into a historical version of the Chuck Norris meme, so some backlash was to be expected.

As for Wilson, he did some good things like giving women the right to vote, but it really don't make up for all the terrible things he did. At least not in my opinion.

How did Wilson give women the vote?  It was a constitutional amendment.

Wilson's face heel turn on the issue in 1918, in a widely publicized speech on the eve of not the first congressional vote on it, was instrumental in getting the amendment passed. It actually failed on that occasion (two votes short of the necessary two thirds in the Senate, after passing the House easily) but was passed on the next try the following year.

[Redalgo]

Unless you were an anti-war supporter

In that case your constitutionally guaranteed rights were destroyed and you were probably thrown in jail.

This extended to anarchists, communists, socialists, and anyone who otherwise did not like the established form of government, or expressed criticism of state policy during wartime. Wilson gives FDR a run for his money when it comes to being the most authoritarian U.S. president of the 20th century.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wilson gave us the federal reserve, 8 hour work days, women the right to vote, anti-trust act, curtailed child labor, and so on.  For pre-FDR Presidents, he's easily second after Lincoln in terms of accomplishment.

All three candidates in 1912 supported the idea of a central bank.

The 8-hour work day applied only to railroad employees and came about not because of any particular sympathy towards labor by Wilson, but because the railroad unions were strong enough to disrupt operations, something that would be intolerable as Wilson organized the country for war production and later for war.

As for Child Labor, yes Wilson did lobby hard in 1916 for passage of the Keating–Owen Act, but he had also lobbied against a stricter child labor law the year before.  Also, the Children' Bureau in the Department of Labor (originally in the Department of Commerce of Labor) was set up during the Taft Administration.  Again, this was an issue that had considerable bipartisan support, so it is doubtful that it would have mattered who won in 1912.
Wilson had to be dragged kicking and creaming into supporting women's suffrage.

The Clayton Act was based on the recommendations of a commission set up in the last days of the Taft Administration, so lauding Wilson for being a paragon of anti-trust law is ridiculous.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The idea that "Progressivism" was ever rooted in Left-wing ideology is one of the biggest lies of the 20th century in American political history.

TR was arguably the most Conservative President in history-certainly he romanticized White Men as having to be "tough" as strong protectors of the White Family-and he denounced radicalism (which was a real movement back then) on the Left as being the gravest threat to American civilization that anyone had ever faced. He staked his Presidency and 1912 campaign on regulating the growing power of corporations and the federal government-both of which he saw as inevitable.

Wilson was the closest President we've had to being an actual Klansman- only he articulated his racist reactionary views through academic intellectualism. Unlike TR, however, Wilson erred on the side of competition and preferred smaller, more diffused economic activity.

Both of these men were Progressives in that they worked to rationalize the economic and social order of their time through reforms that would stabilize the system and ward off the threat of the radical Left. To this end, both expanded executive power greatly. But the reforms came at a heavy price to independent reform movements, which included the Socialist electoral movement in the United States.

[H. Ross Peron]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

I don't see how this global disparity (in what?) was any better a few centuries ago or a millennia before.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

I don't see how this global disparity (in what?) was any better a few centuries ago or a millennia before.

That's exactly the point. People are pointing out that things are better now, but that's not true. They could be moreso, but that requires us to at least question some Western-centric beliefs, the most evident of which being the enthronement of economic liberalism as a cure-all for economic progress.

[H. Ross Peron]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

I don't see how this global disparity (in what?) was any better a few centuries ago or a millennia before.

That's exactly the point. People are pointing out that things are better now, but that's not true. They could be moreso, but that requires us to at least question some Western-centric beliefs, the most evident of which being the enthronement of economic liberalism as a cure-all for economic progress.

The thing is, things are better even if very marginally. For example most of the Third World has access to vaccines not available even a century ago. And socialism is also essentially a Western-centric philosophy (at least as much as capitalism is).