Actually, John, that’s the perfect answer for the age

ARTICLE: “McCain’s Conservative Model? Roosevelt (Theodore, That Is),” by Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper, New York Times, 13 July 2008, p. A1.

Yes, globalization needs a shaming and taming period akin to our Progressive Era, to include the environment.

It’s McCain’s assumption of “tougher foreign policy” where the myths of TR take root: Other than the counterinsurgency inherited from McKinley, TR started no wars and got no American soldiers killed. If anything, his focus was on arbitrationism (Elihu Root) and peace-mongering (the first and only sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (Secretary of War Root also got one later).

If anything, McCain’s got it backwards: TR pushed restraint overseas and was highly aggressive in using the power of the state at home, whereas McCain indicates the opposite tendencies.

So great model, but maybe not for McCain ...

Comments

[Smitten Eagle]

Your are correct if you look only at the presidency of TR. However, looking at his other careers (XO of the Rough Riders, SecNav), I think that TR implies something of a muscular, agressive, (yet benign?) foreign policy.

Sailing the Great White Fleet around predominately European naval playgrounds was quite aggressive, and could have been interpreted as a shot across the bow of many naval powers of the day. What would such a shot across the bow look like today, with regards to China, Venezuala, Russia, Iran, or North Korea? Something more agressive than Obama would put forth, I'm sure!

This doesn't take away from TR's diplomacy. TR was indeed a diplomat, probably one of the finest. But he always carried the big stick.

[Gilbert Garza]

On foreign policy it’s a matter of both drawing and pushing with both restraint and power primarily toward cumulatively positive enduring local and global institutional and economic outcomes from knowledge of what they (foreign governments and peoples) want/need and how they view the past present and future for themselves (and for us) within the moveable developing global context of everything else. Talking tough and the use of hard power have their place and their risks. Talking nice and the use of soft power have their place and their risks. BFA and PNM clearly detail and summarize the global positives and outline the likely global context of everything else for several generations to come. I think it is likely that Obama and McCain will either one do this right if elected as president. I think it is less likely but very possible that either one will totally screw it up if elected as president.

[Jerry Hendrix]

My disagreement with you on this one is one of nuance. While it is true that TR did not get a soldier killed overseas, and he did urge restraint and arbitration upon the other great powers of his era, TR pursued both these results from an overwhelming position of strength (he earned a Medal of Honor, as well as a Peace Prize) and made it quite clear on a number of occassions that he was willing to draw the sword to protect and forward American interests if rattling it didn't get the job done. I speak specifically about the Venezuelan Crisis of 01-02, backing Panama's Independence movement in 1903, the Perdicaris Morocco incident in 1904, and, of course, the Great White Fleet, which was sent in response to issues between the United States and Japan.If McCain is pursuing this kind of approach, plus a progressive, regulatory policy at home as he is indicating, he will truly be following TR.

[Walt Lips]

Tom, I don't think that your description of the TR model is correct. I would certainly not describe him as an advocate of arbitrationism and peace mongering. A view back at TR from our current situation should take into account the different role in the world of the US at the turn of the last century as opposed to our role in this new century. TR was a strong advocate of an expanding US influence in the world which is why as President he directed the Great White Fleet to sail around the world, and I think that's why he took the lead in facilitating the end of the Russo-Japanese War which was how he won the Nobel Peace Prize. As a new and ambitious power in the Pacific, U.S. interests were best served by a quick end to that War. Although he didn't start a war as President, he was a strong advocate for going to war with Spain before and after the Maine was sunk, and as Assistant Secreatary of the Navy he set the stage for Dewey's success in the Pacific. He also talked about the need to sometimes "spank" some of those South American countries when they became unruly toward us, and he was critical of Wilson for not getting into WWI earlier. Again, that does not sound like a focus on arbitration and peace mongering.

[Louis Heberlein]

There are a lot of indications that the Great White Fleet ploy and subsequent TR foreign interventions to 'civilize' the world confirmed long standing beliefs of Japan's military/political establishment that America was the main threat to them. Their modernization & globalization response was oriented toward that concern and resulted in Pearl Harbor.

Implementing great ideas with good intentions without monitoring the results for unintended consequences is really stupid, not bold.

[Jarrod Myrick]

If there's a horizontal attack inside the continental US, who do you want at quarterback?

[Louis Heberlein]

Neither was Wilson a good example of pragmatic idealism. He made a young John Foster Dulles pressure a moderate German government to accept responsibility for WWI in order to get England and France to accept a 'final peace' involving Wilson's League of Nations concept. That led to the fall of the moderate German government, and eventually the Hitler/Nazi era. Moreover, Wilson pushed his peace plan and the League unilaterally here in America, ignoring Republican concerns. That led to a Republican isolationism that kept America from involving itself in the League, and a default American policy of isolationism that made it hard for FDR to help pick up the pieces of a failed European peace, global economy, and incompetent League. But Wilson has often been looked on as an idealist model for presidents in foreign affairs matters.

[Brad]

Perhaps a more interesting question would be how would TR have reacted to 9/11, nuclear blackmarkets, terriorism, OPEC, illegal immigration. Any thoughts Dr. Barnett?

[Michael]

Jarrod: Would the President be the Quarterback or the Coach?

[Jarrod Myrick]

I'll take the liberty to amplify the implication in your query with the addition of word Head ------>

Montana:Walsh Starr:Lombardi Obama:Barnett Aikman:Johnson

Head Coach plots and strategizes, does non-kinetic: quarterbackplots and strategizes, does kinetic and non-kinetic. Manningmakes more money than Dungy because he's more valuable.

McCain's Coach Knight to Obama's Coach K.

In an extreme emergency, immediately McCain will begin the bombings of Muslims: fellow heads of our league of democracies --especially fully-evolved, complete democracies Israel and India--will support us. Violence against Muslim minorities will be normalized: pogroms will blanket youtube. Ethno-sectarian tribal wars reach tipping point; narco-gangsters get loose nukes and weak governments. The Super Bowl will be canceled.