I’d laugh, but I have relatives that believe it without a hint of irony.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
CHAPTER XIX: THE RISE OF THE LION
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven. – Genesis 11:4
From McKinley to Roosevelt
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven. – Genesis 11:4
From McKinley to Roosevelt
While the election of William McKinley signaled the death of populism in the United States, the McKinley Presidency had barely gotten off the ground before he was assassinated by rag tag anarchists whom they Republican and pro-Gold standard press were quick to denounce as anarchistic populists in the same spirit of Bryan, Morgan, and all their other political enemies. Just three months into his presidency, McKinley lingered on for several days before dying. In the blink of an eye a dashing cowboy figure who had captured the headlines for his heroic antics in Cuba and Venezuela, an erudite intellectual of sorts who had already written a bestselling history of the American West, succeeded McKinley as President of the United States. His name was Theodore Roosevelt.
The Assassination of William McKinley.
Roosevelt is a perplexing character in the annals of American history. For some, he was the quintessential “moderate” Republican that contemporary nostalgia looks fondly back on. But was he? As president he pushed the United States toward a more aggressive internationalist foreign policy that would have alarmed Washington, Jefferson, and even Lincoln. He was a stalwart capitalist but, like many of the patricians and capitalists of his day, saw the necessity of fine-tuned technocracy and labor rights as keeping the capitalist machine oiled up and running smoothly. The populists of his day excoriated him as a puppet of bankers and the Gold Standard. This attack may have been unfair only in the sense that Roosevelt never hid his pro-business sympathies. He believed, however, that government had a role to play in improving peoples’ lives with the uniting arm of business. That is, government helped business and the businesses, with this help, would be willing to concede certain pro-labor concessions to keep the economic machine functioning efficiently.
Indeed, Roosevelt’s governing ideology of technocratic industrialism and capitalism was the true spirit of what we call progressivism. Only the uneducated and ignorant, if not otherwise blind, would say others.[1] This was offset, of course, by genuinely new policies—especially regarding the American West. But even Roosevelt’s conservationist policies tinged with the spirit of Jeffersonian Edenic agrarianism. Looking upon the many national parks that Roosevelt would establish during his presidency serve as an eternal reminder of the beauty of the New World which had mesmerized so many.
Appraising “Progressivism”
With the ascent of Roosevelt, we must necessarily ask “what is, or was, progressivism?” The philosophical origins of Progress and Progressivism are too long to get into what amounts to a history. It suffices to say, however, that the philosophical origins of progress can be traced to two intellectual origins, one theological and one philosophical. The first school of progress asserts that progressivism is the outgrowth of a certain Christian eschatological vision of salvation. The second school maintains that while the first may be right in providing a sort of garden for the eventual blossoming of the idea of progress, the philosophy of progress owes more to the supersession of theology by historicism in the Enlightenment.[2] Eventually, this second school was combined with the Historicist mentality that arose in 18th and 19th century Germany, a school of philosophical thought that located the operational laws of nature in the study of history and society. From this arose the competing views of the Whig-industrial-capitalist vision: That history revealed the law of nature as the movement away from feudal agrarianism and into urban industrial capitalism; and the Marxist-socialist vision: That history revealed the law of nature as the movement away of urban industrial capitalism into a unified commune of workers. Regarding progressivism, as preeminent Marxist historians testify, the first vision became what we call progressivism while the second vision remained steadfastly Marxist. The first vision eventually subsumed everything from social democracy, democratic socialism, liberalism, to libertarianism.
Perhaps the most defining feature of progressivism was the belief that society and man was like a machine. This notion, homo economicus, perpetuated the ideal (already found in liberals like Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes) that society needed to be tuned to efficiency. Thus was born the progressive activist class of managerial technocrats, experts in their fields who would use their knowledge to guide intelligent scientistic government policy to achieve maximum efficiency in the machine known as society. In this vein was Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the two preeminent progressive presidents of the era, found.
The Presidential Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, 1905-1917.
For another way to understand the complexity of progressivism as a political theory we might look to Alexis de Tocqueville as another example—especially as a tale in contrasts. In his tour of the United States, from which his reflections were published as Democracy in America, Tocqueville described a constitutional order—which would be put to the test during the Civil War—as a confederated union of individual states under the fabric of a limited federal government. As he said, the federal government “is…the exception; the Government of the States is the rule.” We have, then, in pre-progressive America an association of communities, townships, counties, and states, in union with each other, to form the basis of political order and governance. Tocqueville noted that the methods of organizing political power could be found in two methods, one centralized, the other diminutive. The United States, for better or worse, followed the second model, “The second manner of diminishing the influence of authority does not consist in stripping society of any of its rights, nor in paralyzing its efforts [as is the first manner], but in distributing the exercise of its privileges in various hands, and in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the degree of power necessary for him to perform his duty is entrusted.”
What Tocqueville described is what political philosophers and theorists have long described as political organization premised on “the rule of law.” The focus of rule of law politics is permit as widespread of free associations as possible. This has its roots in Roman and medieval law, then transmitted to England and America, and crystalized clearly in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This rule of law, as a preeminent English philosopher once said, “bakes no bread, it is unable to distribute loaves or fishes (it has none), and it cannot protect itself against external assault, but it remains the most civilized and least burdensome conception of a state yet to be devised.”[3]
The rule of law based on free association, however, had long been plotted against since the days of the early Enlightenment. Francis Bacon, in his New Atlantis, charted out what we might call the proto-progressive model of political order and governance premised on the supremacy of science and technology. Eventually, when merged with the materialistic scientific worldview, which reduced man and society to material balls of matter—the “machine” we have already spoken of—this vision of a scientific and technological society provided the template for progressivism. Thus we see the associational conception of the state superseded by the “technological conception of the state.” The state, with its use of science and technology, controls society and seeks to engineer optimal outcomes. From this the technological state invariably overwhelms the associational state and begins to enforce baking of bread and distribution of fish. This “technological state” eventually becomes “a rationally regulated co-operative engagement, perhaps a solidarité commune of some sort, not devoid of law, but ruled by a sumptuary policy devised and enforced by administrators, agencies and regulatory commissions.” Another preeminent political philosopher and sociologist described the technological state as such, “[t]he philosophy of applied science…[which seeks] to bring about a fairer division of the spoils [of labor].”[4]
Richard Hofstadter, perhaps the most preeminent popular historian of American progressivism, also summarized it as a “middle-class” reform movement that was “a product of urban life.”[5] Progressivism emerged from the emergent middle-classes in wealthy urban cities primarily “concern[ed] with urban problems.” As the Marxist historian Gabriel Kolko deftly explained, with no mincing of words, “Progressivism was initially a movement for the political rationalization of business and industrial conditions, a movement that operated on the assumption that the general welfare of the community could be best served by satisfying the concrete needs of business.”[6] In essence, what we call corporatism with a certain spirit of welfare and social reformism, is still the spirit of progressivism.
I have opted, here, for conservative, progressive, and Marxist voices regarding progressivism because there is universal agreement among the historians and philosophers as to what progressivism is even if the media and college students speak of things they do not know. To summarize progressivism without the need of 400 years of political philosophy in one’s mind, progressivism was the political belief that man and society were like machines needing to be fine-tuned; through the use of science and technology by the government, in collaboration with businesses and unions, an optimal organized and distributive state and flow of supply and demand would emerge. Progressivism was the philosophy of the middle-class, urban, and industrious peoples of the West. It has little in common with the old traditions of conservatism or the recent emergence of Marxism and socialism which it served as immediate and forceful rivals of. Concerning its relationship to what we sometimes call liberalism, it is best to understand progressivism as the logical fulfillment of liberalism in the newly urban and industrialized world of young twentieth century.
Thus as America was rapidly industrializing and urbanizing, it only made sense that the rural, interior, and agrarian strand of populism was superseded by the ideology of the future. Theodore Roosevelt had become the face of that future. So much so that his face now adorns a rock forever and ever.
[1] See, in particular, Gabriel Kolko’s The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916. You can also read what amounted to the published, albeit truncated, version of my undergraduate American History thesis: Claiming Thomas Jefferson: The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian Genesis of American Progressivism. Readers of this AAR, long in the shadow of the old rivalry between Jefferson and Hamilton, will see obvious overtures in this article. I also discussed our resident president in this AAR, William Jennings Bryan, in the article.
[2] The best introductory book on the topic is Robert Nisbett’s The History of the Idea of Progress which explains both of these inheritances.
[3] Michael Oakeshott, “The Rule of Law,” in On History And Other Essays, p.178.
[4] Louis D Rubin Jr., “Introduction,” in I’ll Take My Stand, xl-xli.
[5] Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, p. 133.
[6] Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism, pp. 2-3.
SUGGESTED READING
Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform
Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916
Michael Oakeshott, On History & Other Essays
Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform
Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916
Michael Oakeshott, On History & Other Essays
Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America
- 1
As to the final sentiment one is tempted to note that whilst he may adorn a rock in the "now" of this timeline, what was carved can be blown up or other defaced
Wha?As to the final sentiment one is tempted to note that whilst he may adorn a rock in the "now" of this timeline, what was carved can be blown up or other defaced
I came here through the signature of Volkmarshall
This is certainly a good aar
I read a few chapters and am gonna read more
This is certainly a good aar
I read a few chapters and am gonna read more
Though if I may play devil’s advocate, I doubt there’s a term defined as “existing in a way that sends old talk radio listeners into a frothing rage.” So “progressivism” and “socialism” will have to do until such a term can be found.
If I had a dollar for every over 50 self-described "conservative" who was, in actuality, a progressive -- and would fit quite well with TR's New Nationalism -- I'd be rich! Alas, that's not how the market works. Don't even get me started on the likes of Fox News and Charlie Kirk and TPUSA ... they're all too unread to know they're just a bunch of liberals. Though this entails the other reality that few people actually understand liberalism, so it isn't much a surprise.
Which brings up a fascinating question: what political ideology and/or historical tradition would fit the description of “Used to read the Aeneid while listening to the soundtrack for Final Fantasy XII”?
Asking for a friend, naturally...
A romantic! Because that's me! Lost in the classics and video games. Hahaha
CHAPTER XIX: THE RISE OF THE LION
The Making of a Legend
The Making of a Legend
The making of Theodore Roosevelt into a national icon and hero comes in two phases. The first is as a man of letters, a historian, who wrote the widely received and appraised The Winning of the West. Published between 1889-1896, Roosevelt’s multivolume history of westward migration and settlement actually reflected his Jeffersonian spirit—in it he elaborated the grand tale of Anglo-Saxon individualism and pioneer exceptionalism, a heroic and daunting tale of white settlers and their families trekking into the unknown from the mid-1700s to his own lifetime. In this 150-year period of westward settlement, Roosevelt made clear the westward settlers sought a new, independent, free life.
Roosevelt noted the heroic individualism and martial prowess of the settlers. As he famously wrote, “[The pioneers] were superb individual fighters…beautifully drilled in their own discipline, and they were favored beyond measure by the nature of their ground, of which their system of warfare enabled them to take the utmost possible benefit.” But perhaps most befitting the Jeffersonianism that guided the young Roosevelt was his remarks about the yeoman settler and his family:
Thus the backwoodsmen lived on the clearings they had hewed out of the everlasting forest; a grim, stern people, strong and simple, powerful for good and evil, swayed by gusts of stormy passion, the love of freedom rooted in their very hearts’ core. Their lives were harsh and narrow…They were relentless, revengeful, suspicious, knowing neither truth nor pity; they were also upright, resolute, and fearless, loyal to their friends, and devoted to their country.
The Winning of the West may have been the prototypical Anglo-Saxon vision of history, but Roosevelt, for whatever qualms one might have in his depiction of savage Indians, nonetheless offers a modestly balanced portrait only insofar that he doesn’t gloss over the “evil” and “revengeful” aspects of the American settlers. Likewise, while the Indians are the undisputed “bad guys” of the story, they are treated with a certain heroism and romanticism that makes them just as much victims of settlement as they were themselves victimizers of the settlers. Roosevelt manages to paint a grand and exciting portrait of settlers like Aaron Boone to chiefs like Logan of the Mingo.
Roosevelt’s history also laid bare his romanticism of the west. This, perhaps, helps explain his conservationist attitude. Conservationism and environmentalism, as all should know, are two different philosophies regarding nature. Conservationism is attached to more complex philosophical ideas like memory and being; in short, conservationism sees nature as indelibly attached and part of man’s existence through his memory and experience and attachment to the land which he lives, works, and plays. Roosevelt’s attitudes toward conservation weren’t motivated by anti-business sentiment but a memorial desire to preserve a national (and individual) consciousness. As he said, when governor of New York, the ideals of conservation would be a “monument to the wisdom of the Founders.”
But Roosevelt’s westerly romanticism was more than Jeffersonian. It tinged with the spirit of industrial and muscular man. Roosevelt cultivated an image of himself, a cowboy, a desperado, a rough rider, that was wholly opposite of his tenderly, loving, and intellectual nature. A man born into a patrician family filled with the spirit of great books, ancient languages, and philosophy, the image of Roosevelt out west was the everyman who had made his home in the vastness of the American frontier. A photogenic individual, Roosevelt used technology to his betterment and self-improvement. He cultivated relationships with newspapermen and journalists to help in this endeavor. He was, to put it mildly, a social media pioneer before social media.
A photo of the young Roosevelt out west. Notice his rather gangly and thin appearance. Beset by physical and health problems, Roosevelt would later cultivate an image of manly muscular man.
Roosevelt, thus, was a national figure even in his youth from his adventures and writings. He was the most read politician since Thomas Jefferson. Then his fame rose like the sun during his exploits in the Cuban War.
The Cuban War, which we only briefly alluded to in the past, was, admittedly, a somewhat insignificant event for the purposes of our history. Its importance is, equally admitted now, only relevant now because of the new age of internationalism emerging with Theodore Roosevelt. In 1891, the United States took decisive action to conquer Cuba—a dream that had long been on the minds of Americans since at least the 1830s and 1840s and was alluded to in Chapter V when abolitionists and anti-slavery activists feared southern expansion into Central America culminating in the William Walker’s successful Filibuster War and the creation of the United States of Central America, still a nominal slaveholding state in the 1890s even though legal technicalities had since “abolished it,” the practical practice of it persisted.
Cuba was not conquered for the expansion of slavery, of course, in 1891 and 1892. It was conquered under the expansionist turn of the Monroe Doctrine to push out the last remnants of European and European legacies in the New World. The New World was now the domain of the United States. And Cuba would become a shining trade center in the Caribbean—the new jewel of an American nation and continent free from European meddling and imperialism.
The intemperate and adventurous Roosevelt volunteered for the war believing it the opportunity to prove American manhood (and his own manhood) just as generations of Americans past had been tested by flame and fire. And in the Battle of Havana, October 9, 1891, Roosevelt led his band of rough riders in a daring flanking maneuver which won the day and put to flight the Cuban and Spanish regulars guarding the approaches to the city. The attack was, according to Roosevelt, out of necessity. American soldiers were pinned down by withering defensive fire and, in fear of the attack stalling, Roosevelt gathered his men, along with other adventurous boys and men, and charged the defensive positions. Miraculously, none of the rough riders were killed in the assault though several dozen were wounded with several of the wounded dying days later.[1] Roosevelt himself had three bullet holes in his uniform but no direct hits on his body. The Battle of Havana catapulted Roosevelt to a fame never before seen since the days of George Washington. His heroics earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor.[2]
The rough riders that Roosevelt had assembled were largely assembled from his relations he developed when travelling the American West. It was a mixture of cowboys, Native Americans, Mexicans, lawmen, including former marshals and sheriffs, and former Confederates and sons of Confederates who had journeyed west for a new life in the aftermath of the Civil War. Roosevelt had cobbled together the first truly cosmopolitan and multicultural regiment in the American army. Men from all shapes and sizes and lineages made up the unit, it was supplied by the latest Danish rifles, and the men were saddled with the finest American horses who were blood descendants of the horses brought to conquer and plunder Mexico in the 1500s. It was truly an odd but dazzling sight to see.
During the battle, newspapermen that Roosevelt personally had accompany the men into the war, reported on the grand display of courageous valor which would make Roosevelt into a national icon. Richard Harding Davis, who witnessed the battle, reported:
They had no glittering bayonets, they were not massed in regular array. They were a few men in advance, bunched together, and creeping up a steep sunny hill, the tops of which roared and flashed with flame…They walked to greet death at every step…It was the rising tide. It was a miracle of self-sacrifice, a triumph of bull-dog courage, which one watched breathless with wonder. The fire of the Spanish riflemen, who still stuck bravely to their posts, doubled and trebled in fierceness, the crests of the hills cracked and burst in amazed roars, and rippled with waves of tiny flame. But the thin blue line crept steadily up and on. And then near the top, the broken fragments gathered together with a sudden burst of speed, the Spaniards appeared for a moment outlined against the sky and poised for instant flight, fired a last volley and fled before the swift-moving wave that leaped and sprang up after them.[3]
The famous victory photo of Roosevelt and the Rough Riders after the Battle of Havana. Roosevelt is in center, already having begun to craft his macho man image for the public.
If his award winning history of the American West had made him well-known, Roosevelt’s heroism—manufactured by the media or not—now catapulted him to the heavens. He was, in modern parlance, a Rockstar. He was a celebrity. He was everything to any man: a commoner; a warrior; an intellectual. And despite it all, he loved his wife Edith. As he wrote in a letter, “There is nothing in the world—no possible success, military or political which is worth weighing in the balance for one moment against the happiness that comes to those fortunate enough to make a real love match—a match in which lover and sweetheart will never be lost in husband and wife…I am just as much devoted to Mrs. Roosevelt now as ever I was.”
From his meteoric success in the west and overseas in Cuba, the young Theodore Roosevelt returned to New York with thunderous applause and the waiting arms of his newborn daughter, Ethel. And with his return, he was soon aggressively courted by the Republicans to change their fortunes in the state, a courtship that would lead to tense relations, and, above all, the accidental path to the White House.
[1] In real life this was not the case, but because in the game 0 cavalry deaths were recorded, it has been written to reflect that result.
[2] Historically, Roosevelt was nominated for the Medal of Honor after the Battle of San Juan Hill but was blocked due to political rivalries. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously in 2001. He remains the only President to have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
[3] This is a real newspaper report from Richard Harding Davis about the Battle of San Juan Hill. It has been re-used in the context of the game’s Battle of Havana.
SUGGESTED READING
Aida D. Donald, Lion in the White House
Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West (in 6 volumes).
Aida D. Donald, Lion in the White House
Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West (in 6 volumes).
- 1
- 1
I have to admit that I've always had a fascination with T.R., in part because (like many other more history-conscious Americans, I'd wager) when I was younger a small part of me wanted to be him, or at least be like the public image he cultivated. The man had a certain charisma about him that still has an impact even generations after his passing.
In general, I've always had a soft spot for (if I may be permitted to invent my own term for the idea) "automythopoeic" figures -- those who are driven not merely by status in the present, but by a desire for a lasting place among the heroes of myth and legend for all time, often to the point that they start crafting the narrative for their own personal mythos themselves while they're still alive. I've noticed that a lot of the figures in modern history I tend to find most interesting -- Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, T. E. Lawrence, and Winston Churchill (as stnylan notes), among others -- tend to have that sort of personality.
In general, I've always had a soft spot for (if I may be permitted to invent my own term for the idea) "automythopoeic" figures -- those who are driven not merely by status in the present, but by a desire for a lasting place among the heroes of myth and legend for all time, often to the point that they start crafting the narrative for their own personal mythos themselves while they're still alive. I've noticed that a lot of the figures in modern history I tend to find most interesting -- Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, T. E. Lawrence, and Winston Churchill (as stnylan notes), among others -- tend to have that sort of personality.
The American Winston Churchill
Given historical chronology, and the fact the USA is superior to the UK, shouldn't Churchill be regarded as the British Theodore Roosevelt?
I tend to agree with this! Irrespective of strong personal differences on a whole range of things, I do find the romantic charisma of the likes of TR, FDR, MacArthur, Lawrence, and Churchill to be infinitely seductive and fascinating. This winter I finally read through Scott Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia (a book I've had since it was originally released in like 2014 or something), and it didn't disappoint! I'd strongly recommend it for Lawrence readers. I tend to have a certain affinity for TR and Lawrence, perhaps in part because I like to fancy (as an Ivy grad) myself of being a aristocratic intellectual (though not hailing whatsoever from a long standing patrician family at all) and traveler. Though I must admit most of my world travels from Asia to the Middle East to Europe have largely been relaxed and academic in nature -- the absence of the thrill of secret missions and geographic adventure despite coming close in different avenues -- likes to impose on me the belief that had I lived 100 years ago, I would have been like them!
Being selected by the Foreign Service for my academic merits to do the important secret intellectual missions that were also so essential to the furtherance of God and Crown and all that jazz!There is something truly engaging and mystifying about those men who cultivated their own grand image and mythos -- however true or fabricated it was.
- 1
Roosevelt, larger than life as he is, is but a minnowGiven historical chronology, and the fact the USA is superior to the UK, shouldn't Churchill be regarded as the British Theodore Roosevelt?
Roosevelt, larger than life as he is, is but a minnow
Should have said "teddy bear" right there!
I was actually trying to think of a reference to Churchill's "pigs treat us equals" but I couldn't make it work.Should have said "teddy bear" right there!
I was wondering about Mr. Orwell's choice of animals in that particular Aesop's fable, though I am succinctly aware about his commentary on the Soviet Union.
Ah, Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite presidents. Though I disagree firmly with his international policy. Interesting that you like him and Wilson together, as Wilson is one of my least favorite presidents. Though primarily for his foreign policy, so maybe the world events outside their control are the difference leading to my divergent views.
God bless Civilization 6!
Given Orwell's consciousness in writing the tale, I'm sure it's not all that subtle why he chose pigs! Though I do prefer 1984 to AF, as I get into here: The Tyranny of History. Though of all Orwell's writings, his essays and personal letters are where his real meat is found.
There's something alluring about personality. I think that was one of Obama's great allures; love him or hate him, the man had a personality and charisma that made him stand out in way that the Bushes never did.
Personally, I think Wilson is the great American Hector. I do think, through the various biographies and personal writings of his I've read, he really wanted to put the country first while also having the U.S. in a role of international mediator rather than international hegemon. Plus, he was undeniably right that punishing Germany the way the allies did after the war would only alienate Germany from the prospective new global order -- Germany, he rightly understood, needed a stake in the post-war order which was denied to them mostly by the vengeance of France and the complicity of the UK. I also find the criticizing of Wilson, particularly of rightwing forces in America, to be largely misguided. In practical reality, Wilson failed. Meanwhile, certain lauded collectivists like FDR and LBJ succeeded on such a greater burdening level -- but we all know why you can't criticize either of those men. I have a certain romanticism for lost causes and failures, so I have an awkward empathy toward Wilson though, on the personal and practical level, we might be worlds apart!
Befitting Holy Week, and my ongoing engagement with the great poet in Western history, Homer, I give pleasure reading to the themes of love, sacrifice, death, and redemption in Homer's Iliad in a time of strife, crisis, sacrifice, and passion:
Achilles, Priam, and the Redemptive Power of Forgiveness (6 April 2020, Merion West)
Homer's Iliad and the Shield of Love and Strife (8 August 2019, TIC)
From Hector to Christ (3 August 2019, TIC)
Have a safe and blessed holy week everyone.