Much is being said as of late concerning Teddy Roosevelt being a forbear of the modern progressive movement.  The accuracy of this correlation bears some investigation.  Although Teddy Roosevelt certainly was involved in a grass roots progressive movement; its face bore very little resemblance to the face of progressives today.  That is a more rightful title belonging to Woodrow Wilson.

In fact, Teddy Roosevelt’s ideology appears so far removed from modern progressives; one could make the certain argument that this great patriot would in no wise identify himself a progressive as the term is understood today.

His concerns at the time were great with “mass urbanization, rampant industrialization…and sudden class dispossession”¹.  The concerns were noble and needed address—“industrial safety, child-labor, tenement sanitation, building standards, property rights, food purity”², etc.  These ideals were met with early success.³

The early movement in America and the English Distributist leadership fought hard to continue “Progressivism’s tradition—as informed by Christian conviction, patriotism, and family values”⁴.  But as soon as Teddy Roosevelt stepped down, the movement splintered and ultimately became dominated by liberal activism⁵; which we see today.

Although his aims were just, Teddy Roosevelt’s method of using the “Bully Pulpit” and “government strength” to implement those ideals, I believe, was the weakness of the movement.  Unfortunately, we do not get enough Teddy Roosevelts in office to carry the great weight of true fairness from a Biblical perspective.  Power corrupts, as they say, and any ideal based on the power of government will topple with the change of climate in Washington DC.

This, I believe, Teddy Roosevelt recognized.  To his credit, although “he remained committed to the conservative ideals of the early movement…he was forced to admit to the single greatest error of his storied career:  he believed that he could carry the weight of the movement on his own considerable shoulders.”⁶

If you wish to know the character behind one of our greatest American leaders, be sure to read George Grant’s Carry a Big Stick – The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt.

I have to admit, I am drawn to the ideals of this early movement as long as government has virtually nothing to do with it.  Based on its current definition, I will not go near the word “progressive”, but I do desire to entertain “distributism”; which I understand to mean principles envisioning “widespread ownership of productive property”; assuming it is not controlled by government but comes about through free choices made by individuals.  This would certainly require a shift in worldviews of many of the people.

As with powerful government, capitalism has also shown its ugly face to us often enough with too much money in the hands of too few.  Again, power corrupts.  Is distributism, devoid of governmental control, the middle ground we are seeking?  What really is distributism?  Those thoughts, however, I’ll save for another time when I finish reading the Outline of Sanity by G.K. Chesterton.

Whatever the principles, the grassroots movement must be Biblical and come from “We the People” with a common worldview of “faith, family, & community”.  The government need not apply.

End Notes:

¹George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 155.

²George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 155.

³George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 157.

⁴George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 157.

⁵George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 157.

⁶George Grant, Carry a Big Stick, The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt, (Tennessee: Cumberland House, 1996), pg. 158.