Theodore Roosevelt, 1910On Tuesday afternoon, President Obama delivered >an impassioned speech in the small Kansas town of Osawatomie.
The choice of location was far from random. Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt began in nationwide speaking tour of 1910 in Osawatomie, addressing Civil War veterans as he introduced his "New Nationalism".
Two years later, in 1912, Roosevelt ran for President as candidate for the newly-formed Progressive Party on the "New Nationalism" platform. And there is the real intrigue in the decision of President Obama and/or his staff to make the historical link to their campaign a century later : Roosevelt's electoral manifesto by 1912 contained some far more radical ideas than those he outlined in 1910. And although Roosevelt was defeated by Woodrow Wilson, his contribution helped set the tone for an election that turned into one of those "generationa"' contests that define American politics. The following year, for example, the income tax and the Federal Reserve were put in place –-- even today an ideologically "pure" conservative will maintain these ruined America as the Republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers
All this came to mind after reading some of the media's reviews of the President's speech, especially the near-unanimous conclusion that he was trying to establish the parameters of the debate he wishes to conduct over the coming eleven months.
Greg Sargent at The Washington Post went with:
The clash of visions Obama tried to set the stage for today — a philosophical and moral argument over government’s proper role in regulating the economy and restoring our future — is seen by Dems as more favourable to them than the GOP’s preferred frame for Campaign 2012...we’ll be hearing these themes countless times between now and election day.
Jamelle Bouie of The American Prospect was a bit more specific in his prediction for President Obama's campaign message, arguing:
Of all the lines in this speech, there is one — in particular — that you should pay attention to, “I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules.” This, in a nutshell, is Obama’s reelection message for 2012. You should prepare to hear it — and it’s many varations — on repeat over the next 11 months.
Other appraisals followed much the same theme, including evaluations of the recent influence of both the emerging political star Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy protests on the President's rhetoric. Most agreed that this was his most populist moment yet, with The New York Times observing, “The hourlong speech and the days of buildup that preceded it marked the President’s starkest attack on what he described as the 'breathtaking greed' that contributed to the economic turmoil still reverberating around the nation.”
That is all solid enough analysis, but the speech, if it was intended to fire up Obama's base, was still not progressive enough to please them. Richard Eskow at the Campaign for America's Future, praising Roosevelt as one of “American history's truly transformative figures", found President Obama falling far behind as a progressive inspiration. Eskow found particularly galling the comparison between Roosevelt's declaration at Osawatomie, “"I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law," and the failure to prosecute even one senior executive at a major financial institution on Obama's watch.
However, Eskow was encouraged that President Obama may finally be committed to the progressive path of those reformers of a century ago, as he concluded:
Populism isn't a rhetorical pose. It's a mode of action. And nobody's a better example of the politics of action than Teddy Roosevelt, who once led the "Rough Riders" into battle. If Barack Obama's finally willing to ride some rough country in pursuit of the higher good, a lot of Americans will ride with him.
On the front-page of CAF's website, alongside Eskow's post, was an indication of the “politics of action” that the President should support to establish his credentials as a worthy successor to Teddy Roosevelt. A piece detailed that day's activities of the Take Back The Capitol group where....
Thousands will converge on the nation’s capital to show Congress what democracy looks like, shine a light on corporate greed and the human suffering it has caused, and demand justice for the 99%. For four days we’ll hold spirited but peaceful actions, speak-outs, and protests—from the halls of the Capitol to the offices on K Street—as well as spend time together learning and sharing stories, ideas, and inspiration.
Which brings us back to Osawatomie, and what the two speeches a century apart may portend for the year ahead. I do not get the impression that President Obama has drawn his final battle lines for 2012 with this appearance. His hat-tip to the New Nationalism of Teddy Roosevelt, depending on the eventual weakness of the Republican candidate he faces, may --- like Roosevelt before him --- be the first step in a more radical direction.
President Obama may not produce A Charter for Democracy or a Confession of Faith, where Roosevelt accepted the nomination of the Progressive Party, and ended with the words “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord”. However, it will be interesting to see if he adopts some of the other ideas from the first sentence of the Osawatomie speech in 1910:
[This] is the long struggle for the uplift of humanity. Our country-this great Republic-means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.
By 1912, Roosevelt saw the necessity of the struggle lying in the ability of the “people” to overcome the institutional and financial obstacles preventing a real democracy . Roosevelt envisaged different methods for doing this, and placed a higher emphasis on reform of State courts than the Supreme Court, but his suggestion basically involved a scenario where laws declared unconstitutional were put before the public again. If they were re-passed, they could not be subject constitutional review. The people, and not judges, were to be the final arbiters of the legislation that governed them.
This is not to suggest that President Obama will propose a similar reform of the judiciary. Nor will he go as far as Roosevelt did in his Confession of Faith when he stated, “We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers.” But, if he does continue with this Rooseveltian-like journey to the Left through 2012, this populist turn may be of significance not November.