POST NO. 36: WHAT WE MIGHT LEARN FROM TWO PAST PRESIDENTS
- Martin Sullivan
- Nov 2, 2024
- 8 min read
Updated: Nov 3, 2024
This post is about policies from two past presidents, and what we might learn from them today. The scribblings in this post may or may not have any relationship to the upcoming election, but it certainly does to the long term progress of America.
Here are links to the two speeches made by these presidents that clearly describe their approaches. The first is Theodore Roosevelt’s (Republican) speech on his domestic “square deal” policy, and the second is John F. Kennedy’s (Democrat) speech on foreign policy at American University in Washington, five months before his assassination. Here are the links:
These two presidents are emblematic of how the United States can periodically make major advancements primarily based on the leadership of the U.S. President. When this happens it invariably is the result of a strong determination on the part of the President to push through an agenda that goes against established orthodoxy. Most presidents are caretaker presidents and follow the expected party lines and, perhaps, are able to make some minor improvements depending on who controls the legislature.
Let’s first look at domestic policy under Teddy Roosevelt. At the beginning of the 1900s, big business was virtually unchecked. The working class United States citizen had little protections. Child labor was commonplace. The ills of capitalism in the middle of the industrial revolution were obvious, and socialist movements were proliferating in Europe and Russia, and to a lesser extent in the United States.
Teddy Roosevelt assumed the Presidency after the assassination of President McKinley. He was President from 1901 to 1909. He relished using the power of the presidency. In a letter to a British historian, he wrote “While President, I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office…” To enact his domestic agenda he had to fight many in his own Republican party and its orthodoxy of small government, especially regarding business regulation. Roosevelt coined the term “square deal” for his domestic policy. Throughout his career he was very aware of the abuses of working class Americans by business and the unfair monopoly position of large conglomerates such as the railroad monopoly. He argued that a “square deal” is something that benefits all classes, creeds, and sections, and that America does well when all do well. Republics fail, he argued, when one class, no matter which one, is advantaged over the other. In his own words from his “square deal” speech: “If all the existing instrumentalities of wealth could be abolished, the first and severest suffering would come among those of us who are least well-off at present. The wage-worker is well off only when the rest of the country is well-off … In his turn, the capitalist who is really a conservative, the man who has forethought as well as patriotism, should heartily welcome every effort, legislative or otherwise, which has for its object to secure fair dealing by capital, corporate or individual, toward the public and toward the employee”. TR was focused on removing roadblocks so everyone prospers, and less concerned about the wealth gap. So what did TR do? Here is a summary of some of his major accomplishments:
He used the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act to dismantle business conglomerates that used unfair anti-competitive practices. A prime example was the breakup of the Northern Securities Corporation, a consortium of railroad companies throughout the Northwest beginning in Chicago. Due to their monopoly position, they fixed transport prices that hurt farmers significantly in getting their goods to market.
He threatened to use the military to end the violence by company agents against coalminers in Pennsylvania. His intervention led to a common sense agreement between management and the workers in the mines.
He spearheaded passage of the Elkins Act of 1903 and the Hepburn Act of 1906, both of which strengthened the position of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad prices.
There were no regulations on the food industry and people often would get sick from adulterated meat and other products. TR spearheaded the passage of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, that established a system of government inspection for meat products, and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, that required labels on all food and drug products and led to the development of the Food and Drug Administration.
He led the effort to create legislation to protect workers, including improved factory conditions and the elimination of child labor.
TR is well known for his conservation efforts. During his presidency he set aside 230 million acres of national forests and established several national parks and the U.S. Forest Service.
His activism as president expanded the role of the Federal government as can be seen from the above. He fought the interests of his own party in doing this. Some would argue that the Federal bureaucracy has grown out of control since then. But at the time, these were needed reforms to create his “square deal”. Although I want to focus on Kennedy’s foreign policy, I would be amiss if I did not also mention Roosevelt’s activism in expanding U.S. influence in the world, most notably in the creation of the Panama Canal and expansion of the U.S. Navy.
The second activist President is John F. Kennedy. In looking at his foreign policy, I want to focus on John Kennedy’s approach to dealing with a very powerful adversary, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the USSR.
His speech at the American University five months before his assassination encapsulates his policy toward the Soviets.
In Kennedy’s time Soviet communism was an activist, evangelical effort at interfering in other nations to implement their view of government. They fomented unrest and used violence to spread their ideology and system of government into other nations across the globe. Vietnam, Korea, Central and South America, Africa are just some examples. In his speech Kennedy called out the Soviets and suggested a better path forward, “It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured …” These were not just empty words. Kennedy went against many of his generals who felt that military intervention in other countries was the best approach. On several occasions, both before, during and after the Cuban missile crisis, his generals wanted to invade Cuba but were rebuffed by JFK. They saw him as naive and inexperienced. Fortunately he was a strong leader who put the American people first, not his generals. He also rebuffed his generals when they suggested putting massive numbers of U.S. troops into Vietnam. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, a career politician, was not as strong. Johnson went along with the military orthodoxy of the time. Our major military actions in Vietnam, starting with the Johnson administration, was the result. I can only imagine what a strong, independent President would have done regarding our relatively recent military invasions in Iraq (wars I and II) and Afghanistan.
Kennedy wanted to initiate discussions and avoid major misunderstandings that might lead to war. At the time the rhetoric in the U.S. against the Soviet Union was extreme. He bucked this orthodox perspective when he stated in his speech, “Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats …”. Kennedy was well aware of the power of our military and the strength of the country. He did not think it necessary to show our power and resolve by a military intervention. Instead he stated, “For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth …”.
The Soviet Union did fall. The orthodox thinking on this subject is that it fell because we put pressure militarily on the Soviets, because we invaded Vietnam and Korea and used the CIA and American arms to push back Soviet efforts in Central and South America. There is some truth to this containment policy, as it was termed at the time. But, in the end, the Soviet system fell because its government control of the economy led to economic disaster. East Berlin was not liberated by bellicose American rhetoric against the Soviets, but by their own flawed economy. Perhaps the Soviet Union fell sooner than later because our containment policy made their economic system even weaker.
What happened after the fall of the USSR was a missed opportunity for America to further peace in the world. Instead the president at the time, George H.W. Bush, ignored Russia’s dire economic plight and invaded Iraq (Gulf War I). This might be the subject of another post.
We are currently facing two major areas of conflict in the world, Israel and the Middle East, and Russia and Ukraine. Our adversaries in the East have come together to counter what they consider the negative and dominant influence of the United States. China, Russian, North Korea and even India are banding together to provide a counterweight to what they regard as intrusive and arrogant U.S. actions against Russia and China. This does not bode well for either the U.S. economy or U.S. influence to create a more peaceful world. Some argue that NATO is now stronger than ever and are taking a more active role in their countries’ own defenses. Although our NATO allies are more unified than ever, partly due to U.S. influence, this is not where our focus should be. Instead we need creative and strong leadership to convince our adversaries in the East that there is no need to band together to thwart what they consider overbearing American influence. We should refrain from casting Russia or China as the enemy. Instead we should heed Kennedy’s admonition “not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats …”. How we might do this is certainly not clear. But if it is to happen, we need strong and creative leadership from the U.S. In my opinion it is because of this downward spiral in world affairs we need a more activist president concerning foreign policy. I see less of a need for an activist president in domestic policy although some may not agree. Our most significant domestic issues are high prices brought about by the Covid crisis, and our ballooning deficit, the interest on which takes a higher and higher percentage of our annual budget. I believe our current institutions can handle this problem.
Some presidents, such as John Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt, went against established orthodoxy and paved a new way forward. Unfortunately, JFK’s creative and common sense approach was cut short by an assassin’s bullet. We’ll never know how our country might have fared had this not happened. But we benefit from TR’s actions as president to this day, primarily in Government agencies that protect workers’ rights and limit the unfair prerogatives of big business. In TR’s time, a strong president was needed to address the ills of capitalism and lessen the growing cries for socialism, both in the U.S. and other industrializing societies. In JFK’s time, an independent and strong leader was needed to show a way forward to peacefully live with a global menace, the USSR. Even though his message was cut short, I believe it was not entirely lost, for future presidents continued to have frequent dialogues with their Soviet counterparts. There was no war. The USSR eventually collapsed.
Our country is tremendously blessed in many ways. We are populated by energetic, creative, talented and patriotic citizens. It is the rocket fuel that propels us forward to greater heights. Let’s remove roadblocks that undermine this focus so that we, and the world, all benefit and prosper from this wonderful country of ours.
We have an election coming up in the next few days. Many think our country will fall apart if one or the other gets elected. Our country is stronger than any one president.
Comments