Jack Hennessy ’10
Web Sports Editor
Not always was Theodore Roosevelt as revered as he is today. In fact, during his first term, he was labeled a dangerously free-spirited socialist. In the end however, Roosevelt brought calm and confidence to a fragile nation in the wake of President McKinley’s assassination. Barack Obama’s current situation draws many parallels to that of Theodore Roosevelt, and he would be wise stay the course.
Roosevelt juggled dozens of issues, each as important as the last. The Monroe Doctrine was tested again and again, while violent rioting in Pennsylvania followed a coalminer strike that threatened to leave the entire northeast without energy, and the controversial appointments of many African-Americans to federal positions made Teddy more enemies then he needed. Roosevelt had quite an agenda.
Obama currently faces an abundance of issues, including the management of two wars, an economy on the brink of recession, a divisive and escalating illegal immigration issue, and of course his proposed health care overhaul. He too, has quite the agenda.
Roosevelt was faced with much resistance to new and innovative ideas that were revolutionary for his time, including the preservation of millions of acres of pristine land. Teddy had the foresight to understand the value of our natural resources and the beauty of our wilderness, and he made sure all Americans and their children would be able to experience it as he had. It was after this environmental activism, in addition to alleged prejudice against connected railroad owners, coal mine operators, and beef packers, that Teddy was accused of standing for “a pretty pronounced type of socialism” according to the brother of future president William Howard Taft, Henry Waters Taft. This was said of one of the first advocates for the implementation of the gold standard in the U.S. Theodore Roosevelt was not a socialist, as much as his opponents may have tried to convince the public otherwise.
We now see history repeat itself, with an unfair depiction of Obama as a socialist in wake of recent moves to prop up our fragile economy, in addition to his universal health care proposition. John McCain believed Obama’s plan to redistribute the wealth was an obvious tenant of socialism. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, also deemed Obama’s motives Socialist in nature in response to Obama’s desire to overhaul the health care system. These accusations are not sound in nature (the National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA, Greg Pason, was quoted directly as saying “Barack Obama’s programs are not socialist”), but they are still frequent nonetheless.
I don’t advocate socialism, or any proposal that wavers from our free market economy, but perhaps Obama is on to something novel if his critics immediately flag him as a socialist. This criticism seemed to work for Roosevelt.
Indeed, Obama’s health care bill may not be perfect; in fact, it may have many kinks yet to be smoothed out. However, it’s time we took steps towards a more equal health care system. I fully support an overhaul that provides as many people with adequate health care in this country as fiscally feasible.
I don’t call that socialist, I call it humane.
Change is always frightening. Stepping into uncharted territory is never easy, but in our case, it’s long overdue. It seems, as Nicholas D. Kristof preaches in his most recent column, that it’s America’s turn to join the world health care revolution that brings with it dozens of benefits including a longer average life expectancy and a large reduction in abortions.
Obama’s health care overhaul isn’t socialist. It’s new. It’s change. We should not fear it. I really hope, in wake of the news proving the health care bill will pay for itself in the long run, that it will get the necessary 216 votes.
Had Theodore Roosevelt not been able to preserve the lands he saved, we may have looked back and seen it as one of the worst mistakes in our history. I fear the failure to pass this bill would render the same result.
Captain Obvious • Mar 23, 2010 at 9:26 pm
The real question about the new healthcare plan is WHO PAYS FOR IT? The feds aren’t making any attempt to figure out why the cost of healthcare is so high in the first place, and drive it down, they are are simply trying to cover more people. Guess who funds it? Hardworking “rich” people who happen to make over the kingly sum of $250,000 per annum. It’s not Obama that’s the problem; it’s a medley of the corrupt lobbies in Washington and the 2-party system that gives people no choice but the lesser of two garbage political parties.
Odette Prolétariat • Mar 23, 2010 at 8:06 am
This article exhibits an error in logic–the fact that both presidents happened to be called socialist does not imply that Obama’s judgments are correct. I think that criticism of Obama’s policy is necessary, and one should not blindedly follow policies that might be obfuscating or simply not right. Assuming that Obama is right simply because he echoes a president that history has been kind to (the information in this article seems to have been derived from a secondary source), is kind of not the right way in which to go about analyzing politics.
Roberta • Mar 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Chico (the hobo)-
Who do you think you are? It seems like a personal attack more than anything, for you are simply jealous of a writer with talent that obviously exceeds your own both in journalism as well as on the field. Your comments have no basis in fact, as Inklings pointed out, and calling someone out for diversifying the type of article they write is an embarassment to yourself. I would tell you to go home, but I guess you don’t have one, so I’ll instead say do everyone a favor and go away.
Dan Woog • Mar 21, 2010 at 8:36 pm
This is a very insightful, well researched piece — on perhaps the most important issue of the moment. I commend Jack Hennessy for the depth and breadth of his writing; his balanced tone, and his willingness to go well beyond his comfort zone as web sports editor. (I would say that even if was not his coach, and even if I didn’t agree with his stance.)
We need more of this type of writing in high school journalism — and more of this type of thinking from high school students. Jack’s ability to think about, analyze, synthesize and conceptualize issues like this are reasons I am so hopeful that our future is in good hands.
Chico • Mar 21, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Oh, by the way, never call him “Teddy.” Roosevelt scholars know that he didn’t like the name, and said anyone who uses it “doesn’t know me.” Which you don’t, so it’s always an instant tip-off. It’s why the nickname is banned aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
Chico • Mar 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“Web Sports Editor” Well, no surprise then you got a lot wrong. TR’s first term was not when he was looked at as socialist. He felt obligated to continue, unbroken — as he said upon McKinley’s murder — the Major’s policies. It was only when he was elected in his own right that he felt he could chart his own course. And even then, they were McKinley policies for reform that Roosevelt simply pushed with more bombast and fire. For instance, Mark Hanna had instituted policies such as paid leave and unemployment insurance for his employees, yet the ignorant still buy the line that he was some kind of robber baron.
TR didn’t face the charges of socialist until he ran for a third term in 1912, and even then it wasn’t much. It can be wrong on some people and write on some people, just as calling a communist a communist isn’t McCarthyism.
Anyway, always dangerous to write parallels to historical figures when you know so little about them. Leave that to professional authors and historians. It’s funny, ’cause every sports writer wants to do “serious” news, but you always embarrass yourselves.