I know, I know Yglesias to-be-sure’s here, where he says, “TR is a complicated, multi-faceted figure” but he goes on to accept John McCain’s appropriation of TR as a crazy imperialist devoted to unilateral uses of American power. TR wanted to see the Hague Court “greatly increased in power and permanence.” It’s, to say the least, missing the point to call Roosevelt a warmonger.
Which is all a bunch of academic harrumphing about “nuance” and “journalism!” (and pot-kettling, to be sure) and I wouldn’t have said anything—except that just this morning, the kid was also saying “There was, I would note, a similar assassination fad around the turn of the previous century associated with anarchism, but eventually extending out of any particular ideological niche. That’s how William McKinley got killed….” Harrumph. Nuance. Journalism! Bah.
Look, all I’m really saying is, don’t let McCain have Roosevelt. McCain had his chance to be Roosevelt: he did Roosevelt-the-loyalist in 2000, and he could have done Roosevelt-the-bolter in 2004, when he might have created a coalition of the national-security sane. He let it go. Allowing McCain v.2008 to claim Roosevelt is almost as bad as this (upon which those with sensitive dispositions shouldn’t click).
20 comments
February 25, 2008 at 5:46 pm
AWC
Sorry. No matter what you say, I still see TR as a twisted freak, deserving of caricature. Call me a PC presentist, but I’m unsure why a man whose prose and policies relegated whole populations to inferior status deserves much credit. Let McCain have the “showy charlatan” (in Twain’s words).
February 25, 2008 at 5:58 pm
teofilo
I’ve always been struck by the eerie similarities between Bush and McKinley, beginning with Rove’s explicit comparison of campaign tactics in 2000 and continuing with the plutocratic economic policies and messy, pointless foreign wars. (Actual McKinley Scholar Eric Rauchway will now point out how wrong this is.) The parallels start to break down around 2004, of course, when Bush didn’t pick McCain as his running mate then get assassinated a year later.
February 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm
eric
I still see TR as a twisted freak
These judgments are all relative. I say he’s significantly less of a “twisted freak,” policy-wise, than McCain. By a large margin on domestic issues, and by a reasonable margin on international issues. When McCain starts talking about the important place that international institutions, multilateralism, and arbitration will play in his foreign policy, then he can compare himself to Roosevelt.
February 25, 2008 at 6:41 pm
eric
Actual McKinley Scholar Eric Rauchway will now point out
… that technically, I’m not a McKinley scholar. But tf you look here I think you will be able to see what I would say about that.
February 25, 2008 at 7:07 pm
AWC
I agree that TR was a far more progressive figure for his time than McCain is for ours.
But my “twisted freak” comment referred to his bloodthirsty machismo, more evident in his youth than in his dotage. I try to cut him some slack, as I don’t know how I would act if my wife and mother died on the same day. But I rather hope I wouldn’t spend the rest of my life elevating violence to a some sort of test of virtue.
Anyway, it’s a good thing I’m leaving the Progressive Era. I can’t stand any of the leading characters anymore. It’s not just a PC thing, either; I dislike W.J. Bryan just as much as TR. And done get me started on Taft.
February 25, 2008 at 7:48 pm
teofilo
technically, I’m not a McKinley scholar
Well, you did write a book on him. That’s more than I did. Interesting article.
February 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm
kenmeer livermaile
Sensitive disposition notwithstanding, I clicked. George and Thomas seem definitely above the disgrace. Lincoln seems about resigned to it.
But Teddy’s giving Double-Ought the Evil Peripheral Eye.
February 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm
andrew
Is it possible that the way Rove was wrong about McKinley will turn out to parallel the way Rove has been wrong about the present, making Rove right about there being parallels but for the wrong reasons?
February 25, 2008 at 9:28 pm
teofilo
I was wondering that too, especially while reading Eric’s article.
February 25, 2008 at 9:34 pm
urbino
I was wondering if you, Eric, would take note of that post. Aside from the one you point out, there’s another big problem with it: his evidence doesn’t support his conclusions. It’s just a really bad post.
February 25, 2008 at 9:52 pm
ari
Like the rest of us, he has good days and bad days. But his good days are good enough, dealing with complicated enough subjects, that his bad days appear worse by comparison. Another possible reading: he lets his glib side completely take over on occasion. And because he never seems to proof his work, some ridiculous nonsense sneaks through.
February 25, 2008 at 10:18 pm
teofilo
To be fair, proofing his work would be a full-time job.
February 25, 2008 at 10:22 pm
ari
Indeed. His output is pretty amazing.
February 25, 2008 at 10:35 pm
urbino
I don’t mean to seem down on him as a general matter. He’s one of the blogs I read regularly. I just thought that post was bad.
He does seem to have an abhorrence for McCain that’s on the same level with Sullivan’s abhorrence for the Clintons. It drives him to post some silly things, from time to time.
February 25, 2008 at 10:38 pm
ari
I don’t know, Sullivan’s hatred for Clinton is pretty creepy. Yglesias antipathy for McCain seems pretty measured by comparison. But maybe that’s because I sympathize.
February 26, 2008 at 9:55 am
Vance Maverick
By the way, Eric, that Very Short Introduction turned up here yesterday, a pleasant surprise….
February 26, 2008 at 9:58 am
eric
Great! And thank you for your support, as they say.
February 26, 2008 at 10:41 am
charlieford
John Judis’s FOLLY OF EMPIRE presents a strong-ish case for Roosevelt as someone who was chastened (mildly) by experience–his observation of the Philippine War taught him wars weren’t always short and splendid, even when fighting “goo-goos,” and international arbitration might be more the way to go. There was also that Booker T. Washington moment. Mostly politics, I know–we’re not going to retroactively induct him into the Rainbow Coalition, but, considering where he started, he showed some capacity for growth.
February 26, 2008 at 7:13 pm
urbino
By way of balance, let me say this post by MY was extry good. If Vietnam taught us anything, it ought to be that the plural of “tactical victory” is not “strategic victory.”
March 6, 2008 at 12:20 am
Episode IV- A New Link « Blurred Productions
[...] @Edge of the West: A long and very good (what else is there from Ari and Eric?) discussion of Obama and Iseral. Also: McKinley. [...]