A Tale of Two Roosevelts

Ask Americans where the political state of the country lies today, and they’re likely to say, “Washington D.C.” Unfortunately, this is not a state. The figurative state of politics is just as tricky to pin down; today’s game seems to consist of lying, false representation, and slander of one’s opponent. When watching a debate, the viewer is bombarded with ideas, ideals, questions that go unanswered, and answers that leave one with questions. It’s all impossible to decipher without the aid of objective third-party analysis, which, of course, is now virtually impossible due to the biases that networks maintain. Through these unfortunate truths, a question emerges: why is everything in politics inherently vague? The answer, sadly, is that history has shown that the victor is the one with the least definable goals.

Let’s go back to the early 1900’s, when the political ideal in power was neither liberalism nor conservatism, but Progressivism. Both Republicans and Democrats were involved in the movement, for it was apolitical, with both parties operating toward the same widespread goals.

Following William McKinley’s death, Teddy Roosevelt assumed the Presidency in 1901. On a national level, he began the era that was ripe with what democracy is all about: a government that acts on the wishes of the voting majority. The Progressives held the presidency for five consecutive terms, and in that time they initiated the ratification of four Amendments. Without their proficiency, the public wouldn’t have nearly as much voice in politics. Thanks to them, we can not only vote on state-wide referendums, but we can petition to put our own on the ballot, we can elect our senators, we can recall our governor to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, we can vote in presidential primaries, and we can allow women to take part in it all. It’s safe to say that their impact on American democracy was profound.

But how did they secure the country’s highest office for twenty years? Because from the beginning, Progressive candidates campaigned with their goals at the forefront, clearly stating them, so as to attract voters who wanted the changes they proposed. People at the time wanted more control with their government representatives, and they got it; they wanted prohibition, and they got it. The simplicity of their method was remarkable; they told people exactly what they were going to do, and when elected, they did it.

In 1920, however, it all came to a startling halt. Republican Warren Harding was elected, and the nation-wide love-affair with the Progressives ended. But why so soon? Because they had crossed everything off of their list, and to the public, they no longer needed Progressives; they had run their course. This is why a political party must remain vague.

Now take another Presidential dynasty, this one consisting of a one-man force: Franklin Roosevelt. Just as the Progressive Party before him, he inspired the implementation of several Amendments; because of him, you can’t be elected for a third term, but you can drink, your term starts earlier in relation to Election Day, and you can be replaced if your cabinet decides that your brain can no longer function in a presidential manner. But as for his most cherished legacy, he won his first of four terms in 1932 when he proposed the mysterious cure-all to the Great Depression entitled the “New Deal.” In stark contrast to the winning methodology of the Progressives, he spent his campaign keeping all the details of the program to himself—if he even thought them out prior to his inauguration. With his plan, he eventually initiated enough “alphabet soup” programs to make Rollins proud, each intending to solve problems relating to unemployment, with the hopes of bringing the economy back to its feet. Even into his third term, however, the country was still experiencing the worst financial crisis in its history. In the end, it took World War II to pull America out of the mess it was in. Yet today, FDR is considered our most dime-worthy president, and the New Deal is referred to as a grand plan in action. Why is this? Because Roosevelt never told the country what it was going to be. What were they to expect? By electing not to tell people what the New Deal was, he ensured that he would not tie himself down with personally-imposed dates and deadlines. Perhaps that’s why he’s so revered.

Nowadays, “Progressive” is a bad word in politics. Despite the time of change they authored, they failed to exist for more than two decades, and thus failed in the context of being a political movement whose goal is to prolong its reign. But if longevity is considered the sole desire of political group, why would one truly want to succeed as such? Shouldn’t a group be more concerned with the effect it has on the country? The fact is, the Progressives were. And in those terms, they succeeded.

But what started this extraordinarily diligent and successful time in history? The answer is Wisconsin governor Robert LaFollet, who developed a plan to assemble University of Wisconsin students for the purpose of reporting on what the state was doing wrong. This initiated what Teddy Roosevelt termed “muckraking,” the type of journalism that exposed the corruption of politicians. Citizens weary of their elected officials’ unethical practices fueled its popularity, which Roosevelt eventually saw as an asset to him. He saw the power of the public, and sought to gain their favor by campaigning for what they truly wanted, and initiating what would be termed Progressive. Ultimately, this change was fueled by the people, who were sick of the corruption of the Gilded Age in the late 1800s. What will it take for Americans to initiate change again? Will people ever realize the privilege it is to live in a democracy that asks for the voice of the people?

Our two favorite parties have certainly learned from their “failed” friends. Never will they list their goals, lest they target themselves for termination at the completion of their tasks. This election season, listen for when a candidate does promise a specific result. Then, don’t be surprised when the candidate assures it will happen by 2013. Why would he do this, if his term would be over by then? Because even though he has yet to secure his first term as president, he’s already preparing his campaign for reelection. Sure, our country’s lone example of a straight-forward political movement garnered much success, but lest our current parties flounder, they must stay the course. Be brave. Be vague.