Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate

[defacto7]

107. Ambivalent? Theo Roosevelt?

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I absolutely agree about his lack of pacifism; in that regard he was a downright war hog which is something about him I despise. But he was the hardest on corporate magnates of any president we have ever had.

Ambivalent is probably the last word I would use for TR about anything let alone the rich. If anything, he stood his ground relentlessly on almost every issue he took a position. As a matter of fact, his single-mindedness became so dogmatic after his second term he splintered the republican party out of a misguided responsibility for having put Taft in the presidency and wanted to make sure Taft didn't get a second term even if it destroyed his party. He trusted information he received from his disgruntled close friend Gifford Pinchot while in Africa and never stood down. His lack of flexibility later in life became his and his party's downfall let alone Taft's second term.

But his work against the corporate moguls (the trusts) and his abhorrence of the cronies that had taken over both the Republican and Democratic parties is epic. He was supported by the socialists and the progressives because of his stance on breaking the trusts and paid politicians. Did he have to make concessions during his presidency? Very few but yes and regretted it. He was no friend of the rich in politics and his "Square Deal" made huge strides toward elevation of the working class in his time.

FDR was a great president in most respects but he was the one more rightfully deserving of the term ambivalent toward the rich. On many occasions he listened to Elenore's plea for women's rights, the fight against racism, and the care of war casualties but many more times he explicitly ignored her. And unfortunately, he started the centralization of the military complex in WWII by choosing the most powerful corporations and allowed the smaller contractors be swallowed up by them mostly on the word of those most powerful and moneyed. (on edit: I'm not saying that was his ultimate intention, it's just the outcome of his decisions to win WWII) Most of those corporations are the same big names we all know today. His first two terms were stellar... his last two were arguably.. ambivalent.