Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:16:55.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ROOSEVELT, WILSON, AND THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY OF NATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2012

Ronald J. Pestritto
Affiliation:
Politics, Hillsdale College

Abstract

The American Progressive Movement argued for both a democratization of the political process and deference to expert administrators. Relying on the work of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the article endeavors to explore this tension and make some preliminary suggestions as to how it might be reconciled—at least in the eyes of its adherents—into a single democratic theory. Both Roosevelt and Wilson criticize the principles of the original Constitution for being insufficiently democratic and overly suspicious of the popular will, and they want to make public opinion a more direct force in national politics. Yet both are also suspicious of politics and its potential for corruption by “special interests,” and thus look for ways of empowering expert administrative agencies and insulating them from political influence. Wilson seems to understand the potential conflict between these two aims more than Roosevelt does, although both look to a popularized presidency as a means of reconciling consent and expertise.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Progressives lamented, for example, the gap between rich and poor (see Addams, Jane, “Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements,” in Pestritto, Ronald J. and Atto, William J., eds., American Progressivism [Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008], 105)Google Scholar, the effects on urban life of immigration (see Roosevelt, Theodore, “State of the Union Message,” December 3, 1901, in State of the Union Addresses of Theodore Roosevelt [Echo Library, 2007], 438Google Scholar), and the state of working conditions (see Theodore Roosevelt, “State of the Union Message,” December 3, 1907, in State of the Union Addresses, 201–48).

2 For a representative example of this argument, see Theodore Roosevelt, “The Right of the People to Rule,” in Pestritto and Atto, eds., American Progressivism, 251–52.

3 For an elaboration on the founding of the administrative state in the Progressive Era, and its connection to contemporary governance, see Pestritto, Ronald J., “The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis,” Social Philosophy and Policy 24, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For an enumeration of these aims, see “Progressive Party Platform of 1912,” in Pestritto and Atto, eds., American Progressivism, 273–87.

5 In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)Google Scholar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act not only granted the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but in fact obligated it to do so. Specifically, the Court held that, since such emissions fall under the Act's very broad definition of air pollutant, the EPA was obligated to regulate the emissions unless it 1) found that the emissions did not contribute to global climate change, or 2) had a reasonable explanation for its unwillingness or inability to determine if the emissions contributed to global climate change.

6 For the language on the Treasury Department's authority, see 12 USCS § 5211 (a)(1). On the extension of TARP authority beyond banks and ordinary financial institutions, see: The Troubled Asset Relief Program: Report on Transactions through June 17, 2009, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10056/MainText.4.1.shtml#1094296, accessed February 5, 2011Google Scholar. See also United States Department of the Treasury Section 105(a) Troubled Asset Relief Program Report to Congress for the Period December 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/0010508105_a_report.pdf, accessed February 5, 2011Google Scholar.

7 In its discussion of Wilson, this essay will reflect research conducted for my book-length treatment of his political thought: Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005)Google Scholar. That research pointed to the tension in Wilson between democratization and expert governance. The present essay is an attempt to take the analysis a step further—to think about how the competing elements within this tension might have been reconciled by Wilson, and to introduce Roosevelt's view of the matter as a means of more fully understanding the uniqueness of Wilson's position.

8 For an example of the kind of thinking that Roosevelt complained about, see Madison, James, Federalist No. 10, in The Federalist, ed. Carey, George W. and McClellan, James (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2001), 42Google Scholar: “Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty … that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

9 See, for example, Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)Google Scholar, where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a state law limiting the number of hours bakers could agree to work, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)Google Scholar, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that a law preventing interstate commerce in products produced by child labor was unconstitutional, and Ives v. South Buffalo Railroad, 201 N.Y. 271 (1911)Google Scholar, where the New York Court of Appeals overturned the state's Workmen's Compensation Act of 1910.

10 Roosevelt, “Right of the People to Rule,” 251–52.

11 Ibid., 256.

12 Theodore Roosevelt, “The New Nationalism,” in Pestritto and Atto, eds., American Progressivism, 214.

13 Ibid., 216.

14 Ibid., 217.

15 Roosevelt, Theodore, Theodore Roosevelt's Confession of Faith before the Progressive National Convention, August 6, 1912 (Roosevelt Memorial Association, 1943), 19Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., 23.

17 Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Meaning of Free Government,” in Roosevelt, Theodore, Social Justice and Popular Rule (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925), 236–37Google Scholar.

18 Theodore Roosevelt, “The Purpose of the Progressive Party,” in Social Justice and Popular Rule, 460.

19 Theodore Roosevelt, “State of the Union Message,” December 8, 1908, in State of the Union Messages, 6–7.

20 See Pestritto, Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, 123–27.

21 Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government (1885; reprint, New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 187Google Scholar.

22 Wilson, Woodrow, “Cabinet Government in the United States, August, 1879,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 69 vols., ed. Link, Arthur S. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966–1993), 1: 497Google Scholar.

23 Pestritto, Ronald J., “Founding Liberalism, Progressive Liberalism, and the Rights of Property,” Social Philosophy and Policy 28, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 5760CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Wilson, Woodrow, The State (Boston, D.C. Heath, 1889), 1314Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., 11.

26 Ibid., 14.

27 Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Irwin, Terence (Hackett Publishing Co., 1985), 1134a23–1135a5, 1141b10–1145a10Google Scholar.

28 For more on the differences between classical and modern democracy, see Wilson, “The Real Idea of Democracy, August 31, 1901,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 12: 177–78.

29 See Aristotle, , The Politics, trans. Lord, Carnes (University of Chicago Press, 1984), Book VCrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 1301a20–1301b30.

30 Wilson, The State, 600, 603–5. Emphasis in original; hereafter all emphasis is in the original unless stated otherwise.

31 Woodrow Wilson, “The Modern Democratic State, December, 1885,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 5: 92.

32 Ibid., 5: 71.

33 Madison, Federalist No. 10, 43.

34 Wilson, “Modern Democratic State,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 5: 76, 79.

35 Ibid., 5: 81.

37 For more on the influence of Hegel on Wilson, see Pestritto, Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, 14–19, 34–40, 213–16. See also Zentner, Scot J., “President and Party in the Thought of Woodrow Wilson,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 26, no. 3 (Summer 1996): 666–77Google Scholar; Zentner, “Liberalism and Executive Power: Woodrow Wilson and the American Founders,” Polity 26, no. 4 (Summer 1994): 579–99.

38 Woodrow Wilson, “The Art of Governing, November 15, 1885,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 5: 53.

39 Wilson, Woodrow, The New Freedom (New York: Doubleday, Page, 1913), 5152Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., 245.

41 Ibid., 55–56.

42 Ibid., 60, 64.

43 Among other key pieces of regulatory legislation, Wilson signed the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914.

44 Mowry, George E., Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement (New York: Hill and Wang, 1960), 287Google Scholar.

45 Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” in Pestritto and Atto, eds., American Progressivism, 193–4.

46 See, for example, the Socialist Party Platform of 1912, http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/docs/SocialistPlat1912.htm, accessed February 5, 2011Google Scholar.

47 Wilson, Woodrow, “Socialism and Democracy,” in Pestritto, Ronald J., ed., Woodrow Wilson: The Essential Political Writings (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), 7779Google Scholar.

48 Wilson, “Study of Administration,” 5: 370–71.

49 Woodrow Wilson, “Government By Debate, December, 1882,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 2: 224.

50 Wilson, “Study of Administration,” 5: 370.

51 Woodrow Wilson, “What Can Be Done for Constitutional Liberty: Letters from a Southern Young Man to Southern Young Men, March 21, 1881,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 2: 34–36.

52 Wilson “Study of Administration,” 5: 374–75.

53 Wilson, “Study of Administration,” 5: 368.

54 See Pestritto, Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, 167–72, 206–16. See also Eidelberg, Paul, A Discourse on Statesmanship: The Design and Transformation of the American Polity (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 4, 279, 286Google Scholar; Turner, Henry A., “Woodrow Wilson: Exponent of Executive Leadership,” The Western Political Quarterly 4 (1951): 97115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ceaser, James W., Thurow, Glen E., Tulis, Jeffrey K., Bessette, Joseph M., “The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 11 (Spring 1981): 159, 161, 163, 166Google Scholar; Eden, Robert, “Opinion Leadership and the Problem of Executive Power: Woodrow Wilson's Original Position,” Review of Politics 57 (Summer 1995): 483503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Woodrow Wilson, “Democracy, December 5, 1891,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 7: 355.