Theodore Roosevelt and George Bush
I’ve been reading a biography on Theodore Roosevelt (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt — I’ve already read Theodore Rex). As I’ve been reading, I’ve been comparing and contrasting him to the most recent White House occupant. (I’ve also been comparing him to McCain and Obama. Maybe I’ll look at that in future posts.) I think it’s natural to compare former presidents who were great to the current president, who is (much) less great. There are some real differences between Roosevelt and Bush that are interesting.
Oil Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt
From The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 228 (hardcover):
…Roosevelt sent a self-description that combined, in one sentence, the words “Harvard,” “Albany,” and “Dakota” along with the ringing declaration, “I am a Republican, pure and simple, neither a ‘half breed’ nor a ’stalwart’; and certainly no man, nor yet any ring or clique, can do my thinking for me.”
I think that one passage sums up the early Theodore Roosevelt. He was a man who was fiercely independent both in his politics and in his thinking. He thought for himself. He was a scrupulously honest reformer, going after corruption (especially Tammany Hall) in New York and rooting it out. He could not be bought.
Roosevelt was privately tutored when he was young, mostly because he was sickly with cholera morbus and asthma. But he read everything he possibly could and was out in the world — in the woods with nature, travelling — as much as he could be, learning about nature and what life had to offer. His illnesses did not hold him back at all — he was out, doing. Despite little or no formal schooling in his younger years (and being deficient in some subjects like Latin), he was learned enough to win admittance to Harvard and graduate magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa; he was a true intellectual. There were no “gentleman’s Cs” for Roosevelt. He was insatiably curious, often reading entire books in a night. And he was always prepared — for meetings, for wars, for peace, for rooting out corruption.
When Roosevelt was only 23, his definitive naval history, The Naval War of 1812 (still in print!), was published. It was a standard text for two generations.
Roosevelt was a success in politics from a very early age. He was elected to the New York Assembly at age 23, dropping out of Columbia Law School to enter public life. He swiftly made a name for himself speaking his mind, and being bravely honest. At 24 he was elected Minority Leader of the Republicans in the Assembly. At 25, he very nearly was elected Speaker of the Assembly. When he was 37, he was named president of the Board of New York City Police Commissioners, still rooting out corruption. After that, he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Roosevelt resigned that position when the Spanish-American War broke out and distinguished himself as colonel of the Rough Riders regiment. Roosevelt served with distinction as Governor of New York and was named to the ticket with McKinley in 1900. Roosevelt became president in 1901, when McKinley was assassinated.
As president, Roosevelt acted as he had all the way through his public and private life. He acted honorably, against corruption, with an aim to reform government and to break up the huge corporations that had such huge power. Roosevelt also was a noted conservationist, thinking that the conservation of the environment and natural resources was of paramount importance. His political bravery also showed, especially in regards to race relations — an example is inviting Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House although he knew it would cause an uproar.
That, obviously, is only a small part of Theodore Roosevelt’s résumé. I didn’t include the Anthracite Coal Strike, or the Great White Fleet, or get too deep into Roosevelt’s Square Deal. I include it all to show what a person can do, if he or she is curious, prepared, and determined enough to make it happen. Roosevelt is on many lists as one of the best presidents the United States has had.
(I have to note: I don’t like George Bush or his policies. I think he’s been a disaster of about magnitude 10 on the Richter Scale. I know some of what’s below may be controversial. I also know that it’s not a complete history of Bush or Roosevelt — that’s not practical in this setting. I’m not writing an academic paper. I’m trying, however, to be somewhat objective, until I reach my conclusions at the end.)
George W. Bush
George W. Bush, on the other hand, is obviously incurious, unprepared and seems uninformed. His résumé is comparatively thin.
Bush was also born into a wealthy family. Here, however, is where the similarities end. Bush was raised as the scion of a wealthy household, going to Philips Academy and Yale. He was, by his own characterization, an average student. Gentleman’s C’s here? Quite possibly. Instead of seeking out action (the Vietnam War was going on at this time), Bush’s family pulled some strings and got him into the Texas Air National Guard as a fighter pilot. Bush had some problems with alcoholism, including an arrest for driving under the influence.
Bush’s professional career includes positions as an oilman in Texas and part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball club. His political career — before becoming president — includes a failed bid for the United States Congress, working on his father’s 1988 presidential campaign and governor of Texas.
As president, Bush has been well chronicled. He is best known for such domestic policies as No Child Left Behind, a huge 2001 tax cut, opposing gay rights, faith-based initiatives, and several domestic security initiatives (including the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act). Bush also has been anti-science, limiting federal funding of stem cell research. Bush also has not been in the forefront on global warming, withdrawing support of the Kyoto Protocol.
The United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001. In response, Bush announced a global war on terror and launched attacks into Afghanistan with an aim to root out the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban was severely weakened, but (as of this writing) is resurgent. Al-Qaeda was also weakened, but Osama bin Laden remains at large.
Bush also attacked Iraq – arguably under false pretenses: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was going to use them. This, according to Bush, was a clear and present danger that required action, no matter what the international community thought. During the run-up to the war, planning was incomplete with no plan in place for what happened when Baghdad was taken by US and coalition troops. The wrong people (Rumsfeld, Feith, Franks and Bremer) were in place and, predictably, disorganization was rampant. The tactics were fine. The strategy behind the tactics is what was lacking. (Read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq or Imperial Life in the Emerald City for more information.)
Bush has left his tax cuts in place, leading to huge deficits. America’s standing in the world has been diminished. The dollar is weak, leading to high prices abroad (including oil). The financial system is in crisis (not all Bush’s fault, of course, but he does share some of the blame). The economy is in recession. The nation’s debt is mostly held in other nations, raising some national security questions. Bush is extremely unpopular with Americans. Corruption seems rampant with many scandals — the US Attorney firing, politicizing the Justice Department, authorizing methods of interrogation that amount to torture.
In contrast, when Roosevelt left office, the United States was not in debt. The nation’s standing in the world was very high. There was no corruption in Roosevelt’s administration. Roosevelt was very popular and could have been elected to a third term. There is no way he would have gone into Iraq without a thorough strategic plan in place.
We have two very different presidents (and men) with two very different sets of results in life and in the presidency. I know who I’d rather have in the White House now. As I’ve said, Bush has been a disaster. Roosevelt, on the other hand (while I know I wouldn’t agree with him on everything), would be honorable, prepared, and honest. That, I think, would be refreshing.
Nice site. Theres some good information on here. Ill be checking back regularly.
Excellent post. Roosevelt was a Great Republican (today, almost an oxymoron.) He was a great president and quite progressive. Your comparison of Roosevelt to Bush is well done. Very good detail. It’s still stunning to me, after reading your history of Bush, how this Congress has taken no action against him.
I’ve had this book on my reading list and your post has increased the anticipation.
Roosevelt was indeed a great Republican. He wasn’t much of a conservative, though, at least as how it’s defined today. He actually was pretty progressive.
It’s amazing to me, too, how Congress has not taken action against Bush. For six of his eight years, though, he had a Republican Congress which did no oversight at all; they basically did whatever Bush wanted. Now that there’s a Democratic-controlled Congress, it’s not much better. Speaker Pelosi hasn’t found her spine in this regard.
Bush should be impeached. Cheney should as well. If Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton could be impeached, Bush/Cheney certainly should be. What they’ve done is as bad as what Nixon did.
Recently, I was asked who I thought was our best president and without hesitation I said “Teddy Roosevelt”.
Thanks for sharing and comparing. Great thread.
I’d agree … Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln as our best president, followed by Franklin Roosevelt.
The word “progressive” is mentioned in the comments. Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive Party candidate to run for President. It is also known as the “Bull Moose” party and was very active and strong in the Pennsylvania.
Cats, I didn’t mention Roosevelt and progessive in the main post because it just didn’t matter for what I was trying to say. But it’s a further example of TR staying true to his ideals, unlike GWB and his “compassionate conservatism” which is actually neither.
TR was certainly an interesting man. I’m really enjoying the biographies of him that I’ve read / am reading. GWB could learn a lot from TR. So could McCain, for that matter, who says he’s a Roosevelt Republican. I haven’t seen much evidence of that, except when he’s trying to call himself a maverick.
John McCain is no Roosevelt Republican. He scores really low on the environment and conservation.
Thanks for posting Teddy’s picture. Could have done without the boy Bush’s LOL
The new look of your blog is great!
Bush’s “résumé is comparatively thin.”
Now compare Obama’s resume to TR or Bush and you will find Obama’s is even thinner.
No child left behind was written by Ted Kennedy. How did you miss noting that fact?
Bush supports faith-based initiatives. So does Obama.
Bush and Kyoto; Bill Cinton could have signed onto Kyoto, but didn’t. How could you miss that?
Bush was an average student. Kerry was less than that, he received more grades of D’s than Bush.
“Bush also attacked Iraq – arguably under false pretenses: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was going to use them.
False pretenses that the Clinton administration and a majority of democrats spent two or more years believing and telling the American people and the world. Check it out: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
The economy is not technically in a recession as you claim because the definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. This is hasn’t happened.
Corruption? Amazing how Democrats turned a blind eye to all the corruption during the Clinton presidency, while he was selling missile technology to China in exchange for contributions.
Bush isn’t unpopular with Americas, only with American democrats who hate their own country.
i see my comment is not appearing.
facts really piss off delusional democrats.
Cheetos – you have that backwards, but then again, Republicans are masters of transference.
Cheetos, first off, I don’t appreciate your tone in the “comments not appearing” crack. Your comments were picked up as spam. You made the same comment three times, so I recovered one. I don’t stifle debate on this blog as long as it’s civilized and doesn’t attack the person. Argue the facts; calling someone names or flaming them weakens your argument, and I won’t tolerate attacks anyway. Calling someone delusional qualifies as an attack.
Cheetos, thanks for your comment. Bill Clinton’s presidency was beyond the scope of this post (although I’ve been plenty critical of both Clintons), as is Obama’s and McCain’s résumés. As I said in my first paragraph, I may come back to them as we go into the fall.
While a rule of thumb for a recession is, as you state, 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, in practicality, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. We have a recession when they say we’re in recession. The point of that graph, though, is that people are feeling real economic pain. To many people, we are indeed in a recession, whether it’s officially called one or not.
You state, “Bush isn’t unpopular with Americas, only with American democrats who hate their own country.” Does that mean that only 28% of the country is made up of Republicans? Didn’t think so. There are plenty of Republicans who see what a disaster Bush is.
New saga about the suffragettes features Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson and Harding.
Guess which two of them had mistresses, and how that helped women win the vote?
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.
Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.
Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.
There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.
Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN! Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes – perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html
fair enough dean @ 12 &13. was not aware & didn’t consider my comment could have been delayed by spam catcher. i apologize for appearing overanxious.
poll popularity for Bush I will give you. By the same measurement, his poll popularity is still around 3x greater than the approval rating given to Congress, which in the last either Gallup or Rasmussen poll was around 9%.
I think Bush has made his share of errors; not sure of any president that hasn’t and it’s easy for both sides to be critical based on biases, mine included.
On defense, capitalism and the economy in general I think Bush has done a decent job. We all can debate Iraq until the cows come home (not saying you did or that you pushed the issue) but we are there now and the past is the past and as I referenced to the Snopes site there are plenty of Democrats on record prior to Bush and during the last two years of the Clinton presidency all saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. My issue is that today’s Democrat politicians pretend (again this is not directed at you) that they never said what they said.
There are signs of a slowing economic growth & I will agree with you on this, but there is rebound in the future.
My point is that it’s easy for the opposition to call it a recession as a generalized term, although the actual definition of a recession doesn’t apply to the current economic condition because we have not had two qtrs of negative growth. We have a great language and words have both specific and generalized meanings. I understand that many on the left want to paint a picture of a recession for political purposes (not saying this is what you did) but only noting that in terms of the definition of what a recession actually is, the economy does not reflect that definition.
Appreciate your open-mindedness.
Cheetos, thanks for commenting again. I agree with you about Congress. Their approval ratings are also pretty bad. I haven’t written much about Congress as yet — I’m one writer and only have so much time.
I agree that there will be economic rebound in the future. That’s the nature of the business cycle. But we have a good while — maybe another year — before home prices start to rebound and people start feeling better, and job losses begin to abate.