|
|
|
|
|
Search
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Jim: jdipeso@rep.org (253) 740-2066 / 2009 Archive / 2008 Archive / 2007 Archive / 2006 Archive / 2005 Archive
McCain Is Right: TR Was a Conservative Hero
July 21, 2008
Tsk, tsk, a National Review article clucked at John McCain when he named Theodore Roosevelt a conservative hero.
TR may have been a hero, a keeper of the conservative canon haughtily
declared, but he was certainly not a conservative. TR was a devious
opportunist, sniffed the article, written by Michael Knox Beran.
In Beran’s estimation, TR was a practitioner of "the degenerate
philosophy of late romanticism,” a Teutonic mind set affected by
a self-glorifying swashbuckler who personified "the union of the
romantic yearning for the heroic-archaic and the socialist craving for
an anti-capitalist utopia."
Got all that? No? OK, then get this: Roosevelt cultivated the "mystique
of the warrior.” He expressed "an adoration of strength and
muscle tone,” an unbecoming admiration for the "iron-jointed,
supple-sinewed hero." Governor Schwarzenegger, are you reading this?
Summing up, TR was "distinctly Bismarckian in his reactionary
progressivism" -- a "man of the state" who disdained both capitalism
and the Progressive creed of the early 20th century. Harrumph.
It's clear that Beran has no use for Theodore Roosevelt. But it's not
clear that he understands the 26th president and the reasons why McCain
finds him to be an appealing conservative role model.
There was not a word in Beran's purple screed about conservation, which
was a cornerstone of Theodore Roosevelt's conservatism. That is not
surprising. Unfortunately in today's world, too many self-styled
conservatives equate conservation with liberalism, a curious case of
etymological amnesia that ought to be fertile ground for political
science grad students looking for a master's thesis topic.
TR understood, as few in his time did and too few understand today,
that America's extraordinary natural endowment gives strength to
America. Conservation helps ensure a secure future for the nation that
was founded to secure our freedom, the "last, best hope of man on
earth," as Lincoln described it.
The present generation has a moral duty to protect that endowment and
pass it on to future generations. As Roosevelt wrote in 1916: "Our duty
to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an
unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these
unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and
the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources
are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
I.e., to protect our democracy and to secure its future, conservation is indispensable.
David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times – and a protege, by the way, of the National Review's
late founder, William F. Buckley – expressed a more sober take on
TR last week that reveals a clearer understanding of the Rough Rider's
essential conservatism.
In Brooks’ view, Roosevelt and Benjamin Disraeli were the two
great conservative reformers of Anglo-American history. TR saw his role
not as blocking change, but as shaping and guiding change in a
constructive, ordered way that preserved what his generation's
ancestors had built.
Yes, Roosevelt was a romantic nationalist, but his motives were not
founded on self-absorbed yearnings to engage in philosophical
posturing. Instead, they were the product of an insight that carefully
structured reforms – including conservation – were
essential for protecting America's existing order and shielding
America's time-tested virtues from the excesses of change promised by
dreamy-eyed utopians.
McCain understands this. That’s why McCain, conservative
reformer, identifies with Theodore Roosevelt, conservative reformer.
|
|
