Now that Senators Obama and McCain are statistically tied, Senator Obama's fifteen point lead has shrunk dramatically, and we have been informed that Senator Obama is no JFK, it's time to do some serious thinking about Senator McCain. During an interview on 12 July 2008, Senator McCain stated that Theodore Roosevelt is his conservative role model. In the interview he identified with him as a fellow reformer and environmentalist and also touched on his assertive foreign policy. The choice of TR as his role model might to some extent be an indication of how Mr. McCain would like to position himself now that he has moved from the primary to the general election.
I believe less governance is the best governance, and that government should not do what the free enterprise and private enterprise and individual entrepreneurship and the states can do, but I also believe there is a role for government.
Mr. McCain said [perhaps leaving a bit of wiggle room.].
He added: "Government should take care of those in America who can not take care of themselves.”
John Morton Blum has long been one of my very favorite historians. In 1954, he wrote The Republican Roosevelt. There, he characterized Senator McCain's conservative role model as a "conservative." In a 1962 preface to the second edition, Blum questioned his own earlier characterization of TR as a "conservative," noted the arbitrary nature of the word, and said that he had used it as contradictory to "liberal." Blum agreed with other historians that TR was not one of the conventional conservatives of his day, and that he was indeed the most compelling of the American progressives. To consider whether Senator McCain is a true disciple of TR, it may be useful to consider a paragraph from Blum's 1962 preface:
I think that progressivism was itself often conservative, within the meaning—however arbitrary—that I have attached to the latter word. Those progressives who shared Roosevelt's views were, it seems to me, seeking ways to accommodate American social, political, and economic institutions to advancing industrialism, with all that it implied. They were not seeking to uproot those institutions. They were seeking ways, too, to improve, but not to abolish, the processes by which a free society made decisions about governing itself and dealing with the rest of the world. And they were sensitive to the obligations of noblesse at home and abroad. They retained a faith in an old, but by no means quaint, morality. They renewed and refurbished another old faith, by no means irrelevant, in rationality, which they sometimes called science. They were, as it happens, not very different in their anxieties and their backgrounds from standpat Republicans . . . . But they were different in their public philosophy, and that difference, I believe, while one attribute of progressivism, was also a vital characteristic of a responsible, adaptable conservatism that has meaning still for American society.Accepting this as a valid characterization of TR, and I do, is Senator McCain a disciple upon whom TR would look with favor?
Let's look first at "assertive foreign policy." TR certainly pursued an assertive foreign policy; it may have been tolerated overseas because the U.S. wasn't yet a really important world power, and acclaimed at home for the much same reason. Be that as it may, TR's policies did help to make the U.S. into an important world power, particularly in South and Central America, which have now largely been abandoned. How many high school students, capable of finding Germany or France on a map of Europe, could find Ecuador or Peru on a map of South America? How about Colombia or even Panama? My guess is that most wouldn't have a vague idea where to look. For that matter, how many members of the Congress could find three out of the four without help?
Article comments
1 - Lee Richards
Congratulations on one of the most thoughtful and well-written articles I've read recently.
Two huge differences: TR was a vigorous 42 and his own man, McCain a less than vigorous almost 72 and beholden to interests and influences as all our current politicians are.
2 - Dan Miller
Thanks, Lee, I very much appreciate the kind words and will go out and buy a bigger hat :>.
Still, TR is an interesting choice as Senator McCain's "conservative role model," and should he live up to the standards set by TR, he will be a pretty good president.Yep, one of my bigger concerns about Senator McCain is his age -- hell, he's five years older than I am. That's one of the reasons I will be very interested in his VP choice. One of my other concerns is that Senator McCain seems to lack TR's spirit and his sense of fun -- his exuberance and joy for life. TR was definitely a mixed bag, and in his last years became less admirable than when he was president. As Blum put it,
Dan
3 - bliffle
Good article.
Yes, it's hard to imagine McCain as similar to TR. Aside from the similarity of military roles there seems to be little in common with their views. Even the military relationship is strained, as McCain, being merely a pilot, was more like a foot soldier than a leader of troops.
4 - Dan Miller
Thanks, Bliffle
We seem more often to disagree than to agree, and that's one of the fun parts of the blog.
Dan
5 - Baronius
Dan, you got Lee, Bliffle, and me to agree on something. Very nice article.
Look at McCain's anti-big business rhetoric, complaining about corporate greed. I think you'll see some TR in it. Likewise, with campaign reform, McCain seems to see the Constitution more as an obstacle to be overcome than a set of principles to be adhered to.
You see Teddy Roosevelt as someone who could play the chess game of politics. Well, he was also someone who could overturn the board when he was losing. And I definitely see that in John McCain. (I'm speaking as an alienated conservative here.)
6 - Leonardo
"Government should take care of those in America who can not take care of themselves." Really? Mr. McCain?
Try this;
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - The great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan.
I read somewhere that "Governments are instituted to protect rights of the individual." I think it's call the United States Constitution.
Liberty for Life...
7 - Dr Dreadful
It's in the Declaration of Independence, Leonardo, not the Consitution.
And would you mind explaining exactly how your third quote doesn't reconcile with your first?