¶ David S. Brown joins the Chuck ToddCast
This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code the todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions.
I really dig this.
There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving Wildgrain to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain
dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Well.
You have heard me talk to via that history is rhyming, that there's a familiarity in our recent history, early twentieth century with what the current situation is.
¶ Teddy Roosevelt is a magnet for historians
We're in a we're in a we've got.
These big tech titans, we had the big robber barons. And you've probably heard myself another say that, you know, boy, the country really needs a Teddy Roosevelt. And what's fascinating about Teddy Roosevelt is is that he's a Rorschach test. If you're a liberal, you love certain parts of him. If you're a conservative, you love other parts of him.
He is somebody.
He is like Lincoln in Washington and maybe to a lesser extent, Eisenhower, where it's the rare biography you can write, where there are interested people on the left and the right, and there are people that are devoted to say, no, he's really a progressive. No, he's really a conservative. He's a disruptor, he's this, and Teddy is definitely one of those. And let's just say I devour every Teddy Roosevelt book. I think I've only read more Lincoln books than Teddy
Roosevelt books. He is clearly one of the most fascinating Americans we've ever had. My guest today is David Brown. He's got one of the more recent additions in the Teddy Roosevelt Library, if you will, This is called in the Arena, which of course is a homage to his a Man in the Arena speech back in the day. And this is a it is It is not just
¶ Research process for writing "In The Arena"
the Teddy of the Roosevelt presidency or the Roosevelt this it really is as much an attempt to capture the zeitgeist and the culture that was Teddy, that inspired Teddy, and the culture that he helped try to create and build. So that's my intro, David hod I do my selling.
Your book pretty well?
Wonderful.
Yes, he's a magnet for historians like yourself, right, like Teddy is, just there's in the only challenge I imagine you had was writing something unique that others hadn't attempted.
You know, you're right, here's a magnet, not because not just because it's an incredible life, really an incredible life, but that life that tells us so much about America, and I think what an a storying can bring to it. You know, five years from out twenty five years amount is the perspective of the culture. And so as you note, you know there's something of the times in this book. You know, it's a life, but it's also at times,
and historians also bring, you know, additional perspective. They've seen additional presidents, they've seen people use and the views rosual reputation.
¶ What drew you to Teddy Roosevelt as a book subject?
We might read Roosevelt's actions differently in say nineteen fifty or twenty twenty five than we would have in nineteen ten.
In the moment.
So in that sense, I think that there's almost always something, something fresh, something interesting perspective that a storying can bring to a topic.
How did you tackle this? I mean, there's, like I said, there is so much incredible scholarship on Teddy. You know, did you go how much core sort of you know, back to letters and all of that sort of the ground zero type research.
How much did you.
Either devour or avoid other takes on him?
What was your balance? Yeah?
I read the major biographies, but made notes selectively because I didn't want too much of the perspective to sink in, And I focused most of my research on Roosevelt's writings, letters, journals at the journal Pritt when he was younger, and as many many books. He was a voluminous writer he wrote. He wrote many books, and also the private papers, some of the newspapers, the culturea miliar the people who knew him, the people who loved him, the people who didn't love him,
because I wanted to get a broad sense. But the man and the times, because I think that the two go hand in hand.
I'm always curious of why an author chooses their subjects, and more importantly, when they choose their subjects. Is there something that was happening in the moment that made you turn there and you realize I want to unpack this, tell me walk me through. You've done a few other books, and so what drew you to Roosevelt? And when did you decide you wanted to tackle Teddy?
So about twenty or thirteen years ago I started an a biography of Henry Adams and Henry Adams from the Great Adams family. It was a neighbor of Roosevelt's in Washington. Roosevelt was, of course living in the White House then Henry Adams was living well what is now the Hay Adams Hotel.
Right across the street, although I think it's technically the building was across the street from the across the right. Anyway, there's some yeah, there's some origin story of the hotel itself, but yes, basically right there was those listed.
So they knew each other. And Henry Adams was generation older, old money, like tr dry Wit, somewhat acerbic, and he saw not unlike Mark Twain, he saw Roosevelt as something
¶ Large number of similarities between Roosevelt and Trump
of a big boy. Mark Twain said through to someone said basically this is this is this is Tom Sawyer. We have Tom Swear in the White House, and I just found Roosevelts excuse me, Adams's take on Roosevelt so interesting, so pungent, so provocative, and it kind of drew me in. And also I think writing that biography of Henry Adams, it drew me to the late nineteenth century. So I
was on my graduate work. I tend to focus on America in the early Republic seventeen nineties, eighteen twenty, eighteen thirties, and there was a lot there in the late nineteenth century. Early wasn't aware of cultural history, intellectual history, so I do Henry Adams. I'm thinking there's a lot there about intellectual life at that time. Now I'm interested in the politics,
so I'd obviously read something. You know, some things about Roosevelt before, but never systematic, never in depth, and so I started to read just for my own curiosity. And the deeper I got into it, the more I said
¶ Both Trump & Roosevelt are narcissists
to myself, you know, I really want to write on this guy. I want to write a biography. So it was deep in COVID back in twenty twenty, and that's when I started the project.
What makes Roosevelt so intriguing to me is like Lincoln and Washington. He's a president. Like I said to a lesser excent Eisenhower that anybody running for president, far left or far right, moderate, centrist, you name it, would love to be compared favorably to said president.
Right. And I have I've been having.
An uncomfortable intellectual exercise which that i've i'm and I'm going to I'm this is with trepidation that I that I tiptoe on this, which is Donald Trump and Teddy Roosevelt, and the shocking amount of similarities that there are. There are some important differences. And if you're a fan of
¶ Trump doesn't have the crossover appeal of Roosevelt
Teddy and not a fan of Trump, you probably recoil at this. But you know, there's there's there is something about Teddy in the time that he served of narcissism, right, I mean the original great quote the bride at every wedding and the and the corpse at every funeral was about him, right, you know it was it was said of him his daughter.
Right. What do you make of it?
And how much? How much do you see of it? And how did you avoid it? How did you write about it? You know, how did it? How did it influence you?
Sure? I make some notes of this late in the book, last pages. The narcissism was there. The question is how do you deal with the narcissism and Roosevelt's it was all about Roosevelt, but there was a sort of generosity underlying Roosevelt, and that generosity I think really drew people to him. Of course, Trump has a wide appeal as well. Some of the similarities are a tremendous charisma on the
¶ Presidential primaries started under Roosevelt
part of both men. The loyalists, they've really been loyalists for both men. Roosevelt had a broader reach. Roosevelt got I think like fifty six percent of the popular vote in two thousand. Excuse me, the nineteen oh four acts.
An important point you made that I didn't fully appreciate that it was. It was actually the most dominant vote total we'd had really in the.
With the country that big at the time.
That's right, that's right. So he was really popular. He could really cross over. Trump doesn't have the crossover appeal, but to their loyalists, they could do no wrong. Roosevelts was seen by party regulars in the GOP as being a threat. You know, he was never supposed to be presidents. He was a war hero, and they made him a veep, and of course McKinley wasn't supposed to get shot and killed.
But then Rooseveald becomes presidents and he's so popular that they can't do anything with him until Roosevelt decides that he's going to leave after a couple of terms and then once the crown back. And at that time, for GP regulars, this sort of gave currency to their concerns for the last few years that Roosevelt was a maverick, he was a loose cannon, He could not be trusted
¶ Roosevelt was the rich guy who went after rich guys
for party regularity, and they opposed him, and they were able to essentially keep them from getting the nomination in nineteen twelve, and in Roosevelt said that that this was stolen, that the people wanted him, and of course he then broke away from the party, which is said that Trump had talked about doing in twenty sixty. If the GOP at that time had kept the nomination from him.
Don't we credit Teddy with primaries?
Essentially that that that that that sort of it was right after that that we I think Oregon had the first presidential primary.
There were there were there were there were a few, and they're about thirteen but in Reison actually got more votes and delegates in these thirteen primaries, right the sitting
president did. And there's a number of reasons why these these these these primaries would expand, but one was that it was seen that that perhaps that people need to have more say and we would look back to, for example, nineteen twelve and say so, clearly the party wanted Taft to get the nomination, but clearly most garden variety Republican voters wanted Roosevelt.
It's obviously the era that I think makes this an extra magnet for me right now. And there's always been something about Teddy, did it take a rich guy to go after rich guys?
Did it?
Meaning? You know that the progressive populist politics of that era only gets traction when a rich guy turned on rich guys.
That's too simplistic.
Not necessarily, he was a different kind of rich guy, like Henry Adams.
Here was old money and inherited, inherited well, which is always important. I always find it fascinating. I track I love to see right now where billionaires go right, New billionaires support Trump, Inherited billionaires support the.
Left right now. It's just an interesting era that we're in yeah it is.
Yeah. So Roosevelt did not like new money. Roosevelt thought
¶ Roosevelt never called himself a populist
that that that new money was essentially, you know, building factories and whatnot, which he recognized the country needed if it was going to be strong. But in his notion of the string of his life, sitting in an office all day just making money, there was nothing romantic, There was nothing important about that. It's going to lead to the country becoming soft and not sharp any longer. So
¶ Roosevelt wanted to do right by the working class
he did feel I think when he called, for example, JP Morgan into the White House, that there was a sense of superiority on his side in reading, in culture and background. And if Morgan had a bit more money, which of course he did, that was okay because because Roosevelt had had some money too. But more important, I think, I think Roosevelt thought that he Roosevelt understood how money should be used, and people like this new rich they
liked imagination. They didn't know what was best for the country. They only understood what was best for themselves.
Why do you think he had this this sense, because I mean, is it because he went on his travels or you know, he did seem to at least understand. You couldn't concentrate this much power in the in in with these the titans of that era. But was his motivation because he didn't want them stronger than the government, or was his motivation because the little guy was getting hurt?
I use all those things.
You know.
He never called himself a populous and there was a populist party at that time is it Gradon farmers, And he thought that they were just radical and vaguely ridiculous, But there was a populistic bone in Roosevelt. He wrote to John Hey, the Secretary of State, after he Roosevelt
¶ How would Roosevelt handle AI & concentration of wealth?
had toured the country, and he said, you know, seeing these these common people out there who were standing in you know, by a train stession for two hours in the wintertime, you know, waiting to Henry talk. Uh, they're so sincere, there's so there's such hard workers. You know, we we we need to we need to do right by these people. He did believe that, he did believe that he that the presidency, that the government had a
responsibility the people. So there was something also, I think a little bit of old money about that, the sense of paternalism where they're they're social work, economic betters so called, and we need to take care of them. That's our obligation. Also though when when he's thinking about obtaining the trust.
But I think I think there's something about Roosevelt that is vaguely consulted, that that these that these titans, that they should have so much just because they invented something or they have a factory, And why should they have so much say in our politics? Why should why should they be able to put politicians in their pockets through through through lobby. So I think he sincerely saw them as something of a potential thread through public in a
¶ Roosevelt was very transactional in foreign affairs
different way, but not unlike say Jefferson with the First National Bank and UNC Jackson with the Second National Bank, looking at money congealing together and saying, if this continues, this could be a real problem for the Republic moving forward.
So let's let's let's do this intellectual exercise. What would Teddy be doing right now with the aim, with the with the with with the AI technology that we're trying
¶ He manufactured a separatist movement in Colombia
to build, the infrastructure and the concentration of wealth that we're experiencing at the moment.
I think if it was President's with AI, he would want to harness AI. He would he would want to use it to make you know, as as America as powerful as possible. That would also tie him with the second part of your question, because so these people who have this this this uh, this resource, some of the billionaires, I suspect that he would look upon them not unlike he looked upon the the rich class of his own day,
which is they have a purpose. The purpose is to continue to be patriotic and contribute to the growing wealth of America. And they could have their nice houses and and and and and and and whatnot. But but he I think he would draw a real line uh at the kind of influence that these people would have. So I wouldn't see him inviting billionaires to be in his official cabinet family.
And yet he's super transactional, particularly in foreign affairs.
Right.
Yes, he's he's he's savvy. Uh. He looks to get things done. He wants to build a canal. Not not in Panama because there's no country in Panama, but there's a province in Colombia. And when the Columbian Senate sort of bulks a little bit on what was supposed to be a done deal, then he will essentially, you know, support a independence movement, which which would not have succeeded with just.
Let's just be let you're being a little gentle here. He manufactures this movement in this separatist region called Panama a little bit. There were certainly some independence people that were but it you know, it's it was a pretext, right.
He sends ships and he sends men, and they will support and in a sense, it's it's what John F. Kennedy tried and failed to.
Do with.
Uh, you know, the the Cubans the quote unquote lead it,
¶ America didn't have power to enforce Monroe Doctrine until 1900
but there was American support, but there wasn't enough American support. Rose Alt, I'm sure that there was more than enough American support. So you're right, this is transactional here. He's very happy to play both with Columbia. When Columbia wouldn't play ball with him any longer, he gave Pen the ball.
Do you hate hangovers? We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the social buzz without the next day regret.
They're best selling.
Out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe from a gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a oneless brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwind. So if you struggle to switch off at night, Sol also has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
¶ Roosevelt wanted to police governments in western hemisphere
night's sleep, including their top selling Sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep, restorative sleep. So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order, So go to get sold dot Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code that's getsold dot Com
promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. This is where, you know, when you look deeper at Roosevelt's sort of point of view and actions in the Western hemisphere actually pale in comparisons to Trump's beltic.
You know it.
It was a different time, and so it's a period when that type of American imperialism, the so called Banana Republic era, is just beginning to take off. We had this early phase of American form policy. You know, except American Revolution, we're very Atlantic facing. And then you know, by the time you get to the eighteen twenties, thirties and forties and you're talking about bringing Florida and Texas
¶ Goal was to indebt Latin American countries to the U.S.
into the Union, then we become a golf golf of Mexico, golf of America depends on who you talk to these days. That becomes the focus of our foreign policy, and then American it becomes this beginning of a global power in the late nineteenth century with with with the acquisition Philippines and whatnot. So the central in South America had always been sort of an abstraction. There was the Monroe Doctrine, but America didn't really have much power to police that.
There were there were there were various individual filibuster attempts by American citizens with armies and whatnot private, although some
¶ He was always considered a disrupter despite wealthy connections
were sort of okay by congressman senators to cut out parts of Central and South America. It's really not until about nineteen hundred.
It's all through the nineteenth century.
I mean, look, there's a whole part in the Grand Presidency where there's where a bunch of Republicans want Canada as reparations for the UK's for Britain's role in the.
In the Civil War.
Sure too.
I mean like it seems like we had all sorts of ambitions to grab parts of the Western hemisphere in the nineteenth century, right.
Yeah, and I got about one third of Mexico, so with with Roosevelt, and I'd also extend this, you know, to look at Woodrow Wilson. There then is is I think I think more over not simply using filibusters or threads, but actually you know, going into countries and and and putting putting some teeth into the Monroe doctrine.
Well, and that was the thing I mean he almost wanted to. I mean it was interesting you used a phrase. I think he viewed it as a police you know, he wanted to police the governments in the Western hemisphere, you know, know what was going on, right, And it was almost the first use of the idea that we're going to be the global police force.
Yeah, you know, so I think that there Bracklin Roosevelts related distantly, sort of get the credit for the American century and for this notion of when the Second World War's over, regard to the four policemen, you know, sort of take care of the world. And I think a lot of these ideas, including the social welfare state with the progressive here under results. I think actually the antecedents are there around nineteen five, nineteen ten. It's a result,
but it's with the different Roosevelt. And so certainly, you know, Roosevelt have been the top cop in New York when he was a commissioner, and he took policing very seriously. He applies the concept not just to you know, a city or a state, but to an entire country. The countries will not live up to the obligations, he said,
¶ Roosevelt became a regular politician in 1884
the name must be, they must be policed. Of course, what we know is happening here also is that there's a game that's being played by European countries as well, which is to get some of these but in American countries into debts and then it would be made to pay by for example, leasing a ports, we're opening up markets, and Roosevelt was very very quick to ensure that, for example Great Britain and in Germany, we're not going to
¶ Roosevelt was not a fan of William Jennings Bryan
be effective of doing that, violating the minor doctrine. But it was also tactic, as you suggested, that he from time to time employed as well.
I want to go back to his days in New York politics, because that was a very machine heavy wing of the Republican Party in the eighteen eighties in the eighteen nineties. Was he seen as a good party man in the eighteen eighties and nineties because he was connected to wealthy patrons of Manhattan, or was he already being identified as a bit of a disruptor inside the party.
He was always a bit of a disruptor. He was connected to wealthy people in New York. But many of these wealthy people, including must of the people in his Graderroting class at Harvard, thought he was nuts for getting involved in politics, at least politics at the local level. If somebody wants to bring you into their cabinet and make you Secretary of States. Well, then what kind of
a service. But Rosewock came in at the low end, and he was questioned about this some of his friends, and he said, you know, either I'm going to be part of the willing class or I'm not, and I aim to be part of the ruling class. In other words, the ruling class had been losing its share ever since whenever under eighteen twenty eighteen thirty to Patricius right, And
¶ Roosevelt was jealous of Bryan's oratory skill
so Roosevelt is going to in effect try to reassert that no bless oblige do so in democratic age, Well, you've got to you got to get involved. He gets involved, but he was not. He was not a great party man.
There's a maverick. There was a lot of talk in eighteen eighty four about the Republican Party's presidential candidate, James G. Blaine, as someone had the continental liar from the state of Maine, very controversial, reputed to be the dirty politician, had taken bribes, and so Roosevelt fought very hard as a young man to try to stop that nomination, and of course he couldn't at that time, but there was real question would you stay with the party or would you bolt And
Roosel understood that if you bolt it, if he was not regular, then he would have really no chance. There
¶ Would Roosevelt struggle in the TV era?
was no way he was going to become a Democrat. At that time. The Democrat Party in the North was associated with with with the immigrants, with Irish. The South was associated with with with secession. And so he swallowed real hard and he became a regular politician in eighteen eighty four, and he gave campaign speeches on behalf of Blaine. But that was of the moment that was opportunistic, and he was always free. He thought to go his own way, and sometimes he did.
Maybe this is the fault of some of the educators I have, but I've always tied William Jennings Bryan and Roosevelt oddly more together than separate. And yet they were on opposing tickets. Right, What did you think of William Jennings Bryan.
So he was not a big Brian fan, probably for a few reasons, some would be political. He just didn't like Brian's politics. Brian was a populist. He was also a Democrat. Brian was concerned with, for example, enlarging the country's money supply with free silver. Roosevelt's on the East coast, it's the gold Stan and all the way. And so O'Brien represents two conservatives. And we were talking earlier about you know, sometimes Rooselt's progressive and sometimes he's a conservative.
He was bearing a conservative on Brian, who he thought was just you know, this kind of you know, was going to make the French Revolution happen in America, was going to attack the money supply, and and representing a group, you know, American farmers who Roosevelt respected but did not really take seriously as as being a part of part of the ruling class. They had their place, they should vote,
and they should love like like Roosevelt. I wonder if Roosevelt also, you know, we think of Roosevelt being so young, the youngest American president, Brian was actually just a little
¶ The imperial presidency originated under Roosevelt
bit younger. He was the boy orator. I always wondering if there was a part of Roosevelt. It was vaguely jealous that Roosevelt didn't have a great speaking voice, could get a good speech, great speaking voice, and here's Brian
just wonderful. He would have been on radio at a different time or television and really give a speech, if you know Brian's because this cross of gold speech you gave, there was at a little bit of jealousy that here was this younger man who had these qualities that he aspired to have himself.
You know, by the way, I'm really taken with the cover of your book because of the it feels like an authentic photo.
I'm assuming it's not in that it's colorized. It is colorist, right, but it has this just wonderful right.
And you just brought up something that I think is you know, one of the things I like to say is, you know about certain people that run for president in the modern era, boy, they'd have made a great nineteenth century president, meaning when you didn't need this sort of public oratory or the public charisma. And here's Teddy Roosevelt thought of it as this incredibly charismatic president, larger than life figure. Would he have been an nobody in the TV the TV era?
Oh, you know, it's hard to answer because I'm not sure how the charisma translates. RW again, didn't have a great projecting voice, the ponds neck glasses, I'm not sure about that. Wasn't a particularly tall man. And sometimes you you kind of look back at those photographs and you see him as a forty year old officer in the Spanish American War, and he just doesn't maybe maybe look like, I don't know, Douglas MacArthur, you know, with.
No, he doesn't that right, Yeah, the square jo.
So so it is it is a real question. Uh, And I guess to answer your question, I don't know if that, if all that would have translated particularly well. He was very well read, He was a thoughtful man. He was an intellectual one. Is America ever been in love with people who have demonstrated intellectual qualities? Uh, that's pretty tough to come up with. It's possible, though, that his argumentative skills and debates would have caught people's eye.
It's also possible that because people who went to see
¶ Wilson & Roosevelt lamented not leading during seminal event
him live they said, wow, you know, there's.
Good always really good reactions, right, Yeah.
There were there were good reactions there.
Yeah.
So I wouldn't I wouldn't count him out.
One of the other points you make that I thought, frankly it was one of those I'm my boy, there's a whole book in here was the how Roosevelt's presidency was sort of the first one you know, Lincoln challenged the supremacy of Congress for obvious reasons during the Civil War. But the but the sort of the strong presidency versus
the strong legislative branch. You know, the last time there was big fights like that was you had to go back to Andrew Jackson, and you were sort of painting a picture that Roosevelt in many ways was, you know, sort of certainly in the twentieth century, and now in hindsight, looks like he laid the groundwork for a strong the strong executive that we're now used to today. And in many ways he epitomized this.
Yeah, go ahead, Yeah, it.
Was semichael an imperial presidency, and it.
Was the big the what realistically really kind of in hindsight now the first of its kind, right.
And I think I think what makes it unique is
¶ A Roosevelt government likely enters WW1 earlier
that you mentioned you mentioned Andrew Jackson back in the day, and even Lincoln a little bit later, nobody really had the kind of force and power that Roosevelt had. The country had obviously grown great development, including industrial development, and so Jackson and Lincoln were primarily presidents of groaring republics, and Roosevelt was a president of a country tree that was industrializing, and that was urbanizing. We just become an
overseas imperial power. And that means that how the presidency is also going to increase. There's more resources, there's a bigger military, there's more money available. And this can give someone who's interested and not necessarily expand the part of the presidency just to do it, or to challenge the constitution, but to project, say his vision about what America should
¶ Roosevelt might have started the U.N. framework sooner
look like, or the fruition of America. If you don't have a real strong congress or court system, then with those advantages, that president can really push things. And it doesn't come just with the times. The individual is also important, because we don't talk about McKinley that way. We don't talk about William Howard Taff that way, and if we talk about Wilson that way, Wilson came from a southern state, troits tradition would allow Wilson to and some wadys expand
the power of the presidency. Not unlike Lincoln. He was involved in a great war.
Right, you point out something, and I remember this being I remember reading something about Bill Clinton feeling this way after nine to eleven, that he lamented that his presidency was too peaceful and too prosperous, right, Like he didn't he didn't have a moment where he could have made history, right. You know, there's always the debate, right, do the men make the history or just the history make the men
right type of thing. And you write something similar about Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt that there was a jealousy of sorts that Wilson, you know that he didn't get a chance to lead. But here's the thing, Like he ran for president in nineteen twelve. You know he could get elected in nineteen twelve and in theory have been president during World War One. Give you know, I'm a big fan of alternative histories. That's a that's a sliding door,
that's not unrealistic. Teddy Roosevelt as president at the start of the Great War, does America get in sooner or later? Or is it just different rhetoric but same same basic result.
I think that he begins to arm the country in a percadials campaign. I would guess pretty much right away, like in late nineteen fourteen, whereas the Wilson administration waited until he's say hunting right, And I think unless the
¶ Political realignment was happening under Roosevelt
Germans had sort of pulled back on unrestricted summon warfare. I mean they did, but then by nineteen seventeen they they put it back in play. I think Roosevelt I could see Roosevelt administration going to war in nineteen fifteen unless the German government recognized this guy's real serious, this guy will do it, and then completely, you know, leaving
Americans alone. And then I wonder in that context if Roosevelt would have found ways too, for example, aid the Allies, even with the United States wasn't part of the Allied cause, of course you could do so saying we're neutral country and we can trade with who we want to. In
¶ Parallels between now & Roosevelt era?
that sense, it would not have been much different than occurred under Wilson's presidency, which is that billions went to the Allies and millions went to the Germans. But I think we would have been in the war earlier.
That's my initial instinct when even asking you the question, was I assume he gets us in earlier.
Is it you know?
Do you know does the groundwork for the United Nations get laid if there's a Roosevelt presidency in the teens rather than a Wilson presidency.
You know, it's possible because Roosevelt really came to loathe Wilson, and so anything that Wilson proposed, Roosevelt was going to are you againsting He.
Wasn't alone among conservatives both of that era and of today when it comes to Wilson.
I guess.
And so when when Wilson proposes the League of Nations, tr really attacks.
It, of course, right, But one can.
Imagine that that Roosevelt would have loved to have had the world stage, and if he had been in power, one could easily imagine that he would have made some proposal for this great, huge crusade which is world peace. Well, actually, you know, that's sort of what Wilson was asking for the war to end all wars. One can imagine Roosevelt's
sort of adopting like rhetorick and the like mission. I can't remember who it was, but the research one of contemporaries said the other thing that really bothered Roosevelt was that Wilson was doing things that that Rooselt would have loved to have done, including including go to Congress and
¶ Roosevelt & Trump are mavericks not embraced by old guard
give the Stay of the Union address, which which was just like habitually just sort of like delivered this this big long paper and now here's Wilson going to Congress and delivering it. And of course you know, now once a year that's what we do. We sit around our TVs and whatnot, and we've watched rallies depending upon office, and I think not unlike Roosevelt's relationship to Brian, there was a little bit of jealousy in Roosevelt's reaction and some criticism to Wilson.
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow, myself sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had one life.
Insurance policy that we found.
It wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time, and it's why I was able to go to college. Little did he know how important that would be in that moment.
Well, guess what.
That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
just answer a few health questions online. You can get a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage, and some policies start as low as two dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family with life and insure sure it's from Ethos. Get your
¶ Multiple variables will affect the future of the "Trump coalition"
free quoted ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you should really think about, especially if you've got a growing family. Part of the reason I think the presidency had a chance to sort of dominate Congress's Congress was pretty evenly divided. That was another mark of similarity between the era we live in now in the air then, is that we were in the
middle of a political realignment. Back then, we just didn't fully realize that. You know, that's the beauty of historians like yourself, Right, you can oh, well, that was the middle of a political realignment. Well at the moment, people didn't realize it. Right, I always say that about the moment we're living in. I'm like, you know, we think every election is this permanent you know picture of a coalition. I mean I watched these people going the Trump coalition.
It's like, Okay, on one day, Trump had these voters and there's a whole bunch of.
People that literally the next day might not have voted that way.
Like, this is a more fluid situation than we give it credit for. But as you went through in writing this book, you know, how much did it echo with the current era? In your mind as you were writing.
You know, I think back to nineteen hundred and nineteen five, anxiety about where the country's moving, anxiety about forign policy. We were just entering a phase where we were going to become an imperial power, which seemed to contradict our history, right, I mean, the United States was born in a great anti colonial rebellion. We identified ourselves as the world's leader against colonization. And now with the war against Spain, you know, there's Hawaii, there's the Philippines.
There's suddenly acquiring territory. And this was quite a This was a something we hadn't really done since Mexico, I guess exactly.
¶ How do you define "the center" in American politics?
And then you know, I'm thinking, you know, we're industrializing, there's monopolies, there's a need for reform. This would become the progressive era. There's the populist Party. These farmers in the frontier, hitherto the bone and sinew, the backbone of the country. The here's the textbooks, the agrarians. If you were a president back in their own republic and you were listing what you did for a living, you would check I was a farmer. Of course, farmers are are
the best people. So the American identity is undergoing a great change. Some people would argue of last twenty five years or so from policy AI dot com billionaires, the American identity is undergoing a great change, and so in times of uncertainty, one might rebel against the existing structure. In nineteen you know, term the century, it wasn't that that people dumped the Republican Party, but in a sense
and latched on under Roosevelt. They latched onto a maverick within the party who was never within the good graces of the party's old guard. One could say that Trump is a transactional Republican and was quite willing to go his own way. So he said maybe in twenty sixteen and run a third party candidcy, which is what Rooseveldt did, And so the party sort of, you know, went with him whenever he was in power. And when Roosevelt was in power, the old guard went with him too. But
¶ There are more base Republicans than Democrats, Dems need moderates
when Roosevelt left, they quickly moved on to Taft.
So what's the lesson there, because that's fascinating to me too, And I feel like the McKinley wing of the party took back control of the party by nineteen twenty right, and Harding and Coolidge were really more Republicans in the style of your McKinley's or your Tafts less So a Roosevelt is that is that foreshadowing what we should expect inside this Publican party as they move forward post Rum.
It's hard to say, because on one hand, there's just there's just politics, right, sure, and so and so even even if I'm the old guard, you know, and we look like we've got control this year, there's there's there's elections coming, and if you want to stand power, you have to win elections. And so, on one hand, it would be easy to say, yeah, I can imagine that. Uh you know, when when when Thrumbs gone the cult to Christma, that's there that that the Republican Party is going to look
quite a bit different. Maybe so perhaps, But on another hand, you have to win elections, and so what are the voters pushing for? What are the voters demanding? And in nineteen twenties, you know, even though farmers had are difficult, there was a booming stock market. The standard living kept increasing, and so there were Republicans who who might you know, in their library have a couple of books by rosewant say Roosevelt. It's great, Roosevelt's my hero, and I I'm
¶ How much of the electorate resides in the political center?
supporting the results because I'm voting for Republicans. But really they might be supporting a Republican party that was antithetical to Roosevelt. They can't necessarily see the difference because it's party labels. They're voting the pocketbook. They feel good.
About this.
With us, It's not exactly clear where some of these Republican voters might go after Trump, and that depends upon all kinds of things, the future of the economy, the future of how the things that been happening the last year. So i'll jart in playouts. This year we have elections, and in three years and moving forward. So wow, it's a steal. It's a hard question to answer.
Well, I'd like to actually spend the next five or so minutes here as we wrap up, talking about another book you wrote, which has to do with moderates. It's called The Vital Center of American Politics from the Founding to Today. And I look at these two books, right wrote about Teddy and he wrote that book, and it tells me you sort of which is why, frankly, I was why I wanted you on, because I sort of
I always say I'm not a liberal or conservative. I'm an incrementalist, and that I'm a believer that ultimately, like
¶ The parties themselves are basically multi-party coalitions
you know, we have you know, whenever we incrementally move, it's on solid footing. It takes you know, and it's incremental. Right, So security is the best example of incrementalism that over time takes root and then it becomes something something more permanent to many people.
When you view the.
Center of American politics, do you view it in terms of the middle ground between left and right or do you view it more in terms of how I describe, which is it's not whether I have some views I'm very progressive, some views I'm very conservative, but ultimately I come down as an incrementalist. Some might call that a pragmatist. However you want to view it. What do you view as the center of American politics? Is it ideological or is it really more about how you practice politics?
Let me tell you practice politics. You could be you know, I mean, you know, to be a Democrat in nineteen thirty five, it's much different than to be a Democrat in twenty twenty five. And the party's origins are actually I think the protection the institution slavery are these forms in the seventeen nineties, principally by the efforts of Jefferson
and Madison. For parties to be successful, they have to attract coalitions and people, and so that's where I think of moderation, That's where I think of connecting with voters and if you're too far on the right. I think, if you're too far on the left, you're not gonna be able to do that effectively. You'll have your hardcore, you know, enough to lose elections respectively. But that's not
the name of the game. And so you know, when i' I think of the two major parties and I look at some of the rhetoric, I can usually find some appeal at a center, and sometimes it's a big appeal,
¶ Which president do we not have enough scholarship on?
and sometimes maybe now, for example, it's not such a big appeal. And when I don't see the appeal to the center, that gives them suggestion that that party may not be very successful.
And the next select you know, I answer this question people are I had a student in a class I teach currently was asking me why the Democrats come across as mushier than the Republicans, And to me, it's a matt I always say, well, there's your answer is a mathic problem, meaning there are more base Republicans and based Democrats, and so the path to fifty percent plus one for a Republican allows them to be more conservative than the path to fifty percent plus one. And this is generic.
You know, in certain places it's blue and you can. You can do this, but the Democrats need more of these moderates to get to fifty percent plus one. By the way, this was reversed right when you and I were growing up in the sixty seventies and eighties.
You could argue it the other way.
The Republicans right where they considered more of the centrist party, well they didn't. They had a smaller base. The Democrats at the larger base, so the Democrats didn't have to you know it always I always was trying to tell the student, Look, it's just a numbers game.
You know.
Parties aren't centrists because they want to be Parties reach out to the center out of necessity, right, not out of so in looking at that, there's clearly a vacuum, right, there's a We always say there's this vast middle of America in some of us want to believe it's between the thirty yard lines.
Is it is that correct?
Or how should we describe the vast moderate center of the American electorate?
You know, I think that's one of the great narratives that's been out there for at least the last half century. I think back, for example, to Richard Nixon, the forgotten American. So yeah, it's it's it's about recognizing you can't reach these people unless you recognize that they're there, that that they're not going to automatically vote for you, automatically not
vote for you. And so I I, you know, I look at the hardcore voters on both sides and what always interests me though, is that who's available, who is in play, And it seems to me that that's that's who you need to go after. That that, to me, that's that's the art of politics, which is which is building coalitions, big tents. And you obviously have to do this because if you if you're in a country our size and you only have two major parties, well.
I think that's the flawed our system right there, is that we're trying. Can you imagine going to a clothing store and they're only being small and extra large, And that's what we've done to you know. And you know, I think people sit there and say, yeah, I'm registered as a Republican, but the Republicans don't represent everything I believe, Or I'm registered as a Democrat, but the Democrats don't
represent everything I believe. That if we had, you know, if we had more parties and no majority, and no party had to get a majority to get power, but you had to form a coalition. I mean, in some ways, I always say, both parties are coalitions. Are not parties, They're coalitions of multiple sub parties. Right, there's a there's
a Christian Conservative party, there's a business party. Right all on the right, there's a progressive you know, you could put together your different pieces of each you know, basically multiple political parties within this umbrella group called.
The left and the right.
You know, look, I will I will admit, well, I don't want us to be a parliamentary system. I do wish we had a system that allowed for parties to
¶ How should citizens celebrate the 250th anniversary of America
be more representative of where people wanted to be. But you but you had sort of top four, right, we had four major We're really I think we're really four major political parties stuffed into two.
Interesting. Yeah, well it's it's obviously it's a very diverse country. And I think some of the difficulty in going after the center is you don't want to alienate certain coalitions within.
Your coaches.
And and uh, obviously if you do that, there's there's there's the fear of alienation. But you know, there's also the question of do you want to government from fear? Do you want to do you want to try to gain things all the time. So if I could do in one more result reference and this guy really was a romantic and he wasn't thinking about, you know, sort of electoral votes, and he wasn't counting. He was really
leading from his heart. And maybe this is romantic than to say, but I think if we had more of that, I think voters would really resonate to someone who they thought was speaking directly to them, was mostly sincere and believed that we all had something in stake together. It wasn't Jovis reading spreadsheets.
As a historian who's a president, we don't have enough scholarship on that. You wish people would spend more time getting to know deserves the better biography treatment. You know, I used to say I felt like Eisenhower was under scholarship, and that's changed. I'd argain in the last twenty years we've gotten the proper what I think is a proper amount of historians tackling him in different ways, which feel there's some people that are overwritten about, like Kennedy, And I.
Say this with no disrespect.
They just you know, I get why, what does it because of the circumstances of his death. But I'm curious because I still actually think there are more things to learn about Teddy. So I'm not saying this to say, hey, we've you know, we've had too much on Teddy. Don't agree. I think not enough sometimes still there. But who's somebody that he thinks a bit under represented in your ranks of the historians? Now you like to see tackled.
Yeah, I net sure to see some aspects of James Munroe's presidency looked at more carefully. So this is kind of going way back. But you know, he was the last president to here knee breeches, and so we're really moving from.
You use that phrase, and can I make a confession. When you use the phrase the first time, I'm like, what the hell are knee bridges? So I literally the old I hadn't done this in a while where I did the old? Okay, I gotta I gotta go look up what that is. You know, you know when as a kid, you know you're reading books that are a little ahead of your time, you're constantly doing that.
I had done that.
I was like Neighbridge. Oh knee britches, got it? Okay?
Sorry, so very eighteenth century.
Yes, it is.
Simun wrote as this transitional figure, right, I mean he was a founder, he was it was neighbors.
He was the last founder president, right, I would say so, yeah.
John Quincy Adams follows him. But John Quincy Adams was a bored in the revolution, right, And we're moving into what would be called machine politics, and Monroe sort of resisted that. Monroe wanted to push what he once called amalgamation politics, which is we need to go back to where there are no parties. There's just essentially, you know, Americans in governments and we're not federalists and we're not
we're not republicans. We're just all in this together, which which looks so antiquated by that time, it's just blown out the waters in eighteen twenties. But I'm interested in the intellectual history that's there, his readings of you know, a Thinian democracy in the Roman Republic, and you know, he was the last chief executive to essentially run you know, all by himself. There was there was no one opposed
to him. So there really was that moment of what do you call it moderation or the center or consensus that we could we could we could as a country say yeah, you know, we're essentially behind this person. It doesn't last.
It's interesting, you know Lincoln has that now, but he never had it in practice. Right, what's that meaning that what you just described that Monroe had this sort of Hey, he's representative of all of us.
Well, that's right.
In hindsight, we've decided Lincoln is is an avatar for the for who we want America to have been in the nineteenth century, and it wasn't what America was, but he's the avatar of what we could be.
Right, he's America.
I think FDR is pretty close to achieving that status. Eisenhower, I think has that status. But there's not many presidents that have that status.
No, there isn't. Oftentimes it's it's chief executives who are associated in some way, shape or form with wars. With sure, with America's more popular wars, more necessary wars, and so that loves off.
You made a great case for James Monroe America at two fifty. How should the average citizens celebrate.
Part of their country cognizance of are our successes cognizance of our failures, and to love and respect our country enough to to look at it wholly and clearly as as best we can, and to to do what we can to be good, productive, honest, deliberate, considerate citizens.
Well, David, I enjoyed it. Uh, you know, look, I'm an easy mark. I enjoyed Teddy Roosevelt books.
But look, you.
The best history books to read are the ones that make you feel like they echo in the moment we're currently living in. And I would say that you've you've You've done a good job of trying to capture you know, I think that's a plus side of a history book, right is when it can also it's writing about the past, but it's writing about the present.
Well, thanks, You know, the historian is objective as objective can be. Use this.
You're you're gonna get You're going to get influenced by the times you're living in.
It's just inevitable, right exactly.
The history is living is living through the times.
Well, we need a lot more historians as journalists these days. I feel like context and nuances falls off too much. So I'm glad to surface this, and.
Well done. It's great to get to know you Dad.
Thanks, check,