Five Other Republicans I Admire, Part V

This essay, on one of our most distinguished and successful presidents, concludes my five-part series of Republican politicians (all from the past, you will note) I admire. Of course, I characterize the list as being five "other" Republicans because the first person on any such distinguished list would clearly be Abraham Lincoln.

To those of you taken aback that Ronald Reagan's name appears nowhere on this list of five, let me say, I am aware of his very important accomplishments, just as I am aware of his shortcomings. He must be credited with winning the Cold War, every bit as much as Mr. Lincoln was for winning the Civil War. His major tax cut, at the start of his administration, was, unlike the recent Mr. Bush's, a needed stimulus to the economy, not some budget-busting ploy to buy votes (although the popularity of the measure certainly didn't hurt Reagan's prospects). I also like the way he jollied the extreme religious right, at the height of their power and influence, away from their efforts to create an American theocracy, while, all the while, showering them with the words they wanted to hear-but just the words.

But then Reagan was also the fellow who engineered Iran-Contra that elevated one of American history's true scoundrels-Oliver North-to a position of political eminence (For more on that detail, you may want to refer to my first essay in the series on John Warner). We can also discredit Mr. Reagan for bringing the Bush family into prominence, the immediate effect of which was not good, but the secondary effect of which was disastrous. (Along that same line, none of John McCain's good deeds or wartime heroism will ever make up for the totally-unfit person he brought into prominence-you know who I mean).

I could name a few other things about his administration I did not like, but this is not an essay about Ronald Reagan. Still, his omission from this list is an important enough topic to be worthy of discussion.

Returning to the more salubrious topic of the first President Roosevelt, he was a man of conflicting personality, but, in the end, that worked out for the best.

The humorist, Richard Armour, in his historical spoof, It All Started with Columbus, said of Theodore Roosevelt that he sailed the U.S. fleet around the world, looking for a war, and, when he was unable to find one, he had to accept the Nobel Peace Prize as a consolation. While the connecting logic does not hold up in real life, both facts are true: Roosevelt did send the American battle fleet forth to show off the nation's power, and, in an unrelated feat, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize. He is unique in American history as having been awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Medal of Honor.

The Nobel laureate came as a result of The Treaty of Portsmouth, which President Roosevelt brokered between Russia and Japan in that New Hampshire town to end the costly and futile Russo-Japanese war. Some have criticized Roosevelt for giving the Japanese empire delusions of grandeur as a result of the treaty, which gave them concessions in Korea (the pivotal area of dispute between the two belligerents and a long way from being a sovereign nation), and which gave them a taste for more Asian real estate. Even if that charge were right on the money, I would reject any blame to the American President. Peace is better than war in almost every instance, and that's that.

Something Roosevelt drew more immediate criticism for was the occasion on October 16, 1901, when the new president invited the eminent black leader and scholar, Booker T. Washington, to the White House for dinner. White people throughout the south were livid with rage. The Memphis Scimitar called the invitation "the most damnable outrage ever committed by any citizen of the United States. Senator Ben Tillman of South Carolina ominously proclaimed, "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that n****r will necessitate our killing a thousand n****rs in the South before they will learn their place again."

But Roosevelt did not extend that invitation to put on a show. He had serious political business to discuss with Washington. Keeping in mind that, at that point in our history, most black people were Republicans (as a legacy from Lincoln), Roosevelt wanted to get the black leader's advice on how to allocate a portion of the patronage jobs at his disposal to deserving people of the visitor's race. In fact, long after the controversial invitation became yesterday's news, Roosevelt was universally praised for the fair and even-handed way he dispensed the patronage available to him.

Getting back to his dual nature as both belligerent and moderator, his actions can best be explained by a thought he expressed in a commencement speech, while serving as William McKinley's vice-president: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

He earned a reputation as a "trust-buster" (referring to the near monopolies the most successful entrepreneurs had created in a number of important areas of commerce). That said, his actions to break their power served the cause of American business far better than any Republican president had done, before or since. The economy Roosevelt inherited from the assassinated McKinley gave unbridled riches to a few, but left the overwhelming majority in distress, at best, and penury at worst. Likewise, his progressive acts, such as the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, were a boon, not a bane to American business.

Like my previous admirable Republican, Fiorello LaGuardia, Roosevelt was extremely hawkish on our entry into World War I. Also, like LaGuardia, he offered to serve, but, inasmuch as he was far older than the Congressman at the time, his offer was abruptly declined.

Of course, we all know he did raise a volunteer regiment (the "Rough Riders") to fight in the Spanish-American War, and became famous for leading the charge up San Juan Hill. That's where the (posthumous) Medal of Honor came in. It was not, as some cynics may believe, cheap political grandstanding at the expense of American lives. For one thing, he put himself in the same danger as the soldiers who fell. For another, the hill (as well as adjoining Kettle Hill) needed to be taken, and, if not by the Rough Riders, then by whom?

Theodore Roosevelt was said to be a proponent of equality for women, but was hesitant to act on his beliefs during his presidency. Bear in mind, women did not vote at the time, only men. When he ran again in 1912 as an outsider-the candidate of the Progressive or "Bull Moose" party-he eagerly embraced women's suffrage as part of his platform, if for no other reason, than to sharply differentiate himself from his Republican Opponent, William Howard Taft.

Roosevelt's unsuccessful campaign cost the Republicans the election that year, but the tremendous favor he did for the winner, Woodrow Wilson, counted for little with the new president, who rankled under Roosevelt's implications of cowardice for our failure to go to war against Germany (which, in Wilson's first term, we did not). I suppose for that reason, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican should hate Roosevelt just as a Democrat such as your narrator hates that vainglorious little pipsqueak, Ralph Nader, for throwing the election to the catastrophe known as George W. Bush, with his idiotic run in 2000 (on the grounds that Mr. Gore was-excuse me-not sufficiently concerned about the environment).

I think Theodore Roosevelt had a far more legitimate concern that Taft was taking his party in the wrong direction. And, when the Taft forces prevailed, we eventually ended up with a series of failed Republican presidents, whose laissez-faire attitudes paved the way for the Great Depression. Roosevelt would not live to see this vision vindicated, though. He died during the Wilson administration, in 1919.

Perhaps a small, but excellent, example of Roosevelt's nature came about in 1905 (the same year as the peace treaty), on the subject of football. The game, as played in that era, was far more rough and dangerous than the modern game, despite the players being, on the whole, much smaller and slower. In that year, 18 college football players had died from injuries, and this was at a time when there were perhaps one-twentieth the teams in the college game that there are today.

Despite the opprobrium that many in society had begun to attach to the game, the leaders of the "Big Three" schools, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, saw no reason to change the rules. It took Roosevelt's summoning them to Washington and demanding they change some important rules to eliminate the most dangerous aspects of the game, which had the effect of getting the number of fatalities dramatically reduced. So, to a great extent, on top of everything else, Theodore Roosevelt may have been the father of modern football.

Although he was a shrewd politician with a fine instinct for public relations, Theodore Roosevelt was, at the same time, an incorruptible man of honor.

This wraps up my series about admirable Republicans. Remember, I started the exercise, several weeks ago, with the notion that we could use a little less blind hatred in our politics. I did this for my own benefit as well. Let me not mince words, there are Republicans, past and present, I hate with a white-hot rage. That is precisely why I, of all people I know, should have been the one to highlight the admirable members of that party.

Now that I have done so, let me re-issue the challenge I put out to all my AC friends on the rightward side of the political spectrum: find and write about five Democrats you admire.

As I also said in my first essay, do not use the fact that the white racists of the American south were nominally Democrats for a good many years, which is a topic I may go into in some depth at a later date. Give us five Democrats who actually believed that all men were created equal. I will be interested to see who comes forward and what you have to say.

Peace and understanding.

Sources

Theodore Roosevelt Association

Richard Armour, It All Started with Columbus

AmericanHeritage.com

Wikipedia