for those in-house make sure cellphone have been turned off as a courtesy to our speakers and we will host the program within 24 hours on the heritage website for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion is joseph postl of the beacon assignment center for american studies. and prior to joining heritage he taught political science at the university of dallas. he was a fellow at claremont institute in 2005 and is also a member of the political science association. he earned his ph.d. in american political thought and political philosophy and master's degree in politics from the university of dallas. he received his bachelor's degree in political science from actionland university in ohio. ..

for the first time in the election of 1912. this election was a truly transformative election. the two leading candidates when the votes were tallied were the progressive democrat woodrow wilson and progressive parties theodore roosevelt. the conservative candidate, william howard taft, received

less than 25% the popular vote and carried only two states. imagine a result like that in the 2008. conservatives would be apocalyptic at that. one of the central features in the 1912 campaign, theodore roosevelt continued to perplex conservatives. he promised to remake america with his brand of new nationalism in the 1912 election. openly running as a progressive that conservatives have always held a certain affinity for the teddy. today his legacy rages on. in his new book, theodore roosevelt progressive party and the transformation of american democracy, sidney milkis tells the story of the election as one of the major turning points in american history. an election which continues to influence today's political debate. milkis writes compulsively about the characters and the decisions of the campaign including the

ever elusive theodore roosevelt. i will introduce our author now and yield the podium to him for remarks before introducing other speakers after professor milkis has concluded. milkis deacons sidney speed is professor of politics and assistant director for academics programs of the miller center public affairs at the university of virginia. he is the author or co-author mack of many books including the president and the parties and the politics of regulatory change. please welcome sidney milkis. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for coming out on a beautiful what day is this? [laughter] wednesday afternoon. it is an honor to be here and an honor to speak before such a distinguished audience which includes many of my distinguished colleagues and distinguished colleagues and

friends. i am not happy that it took me ten years to write this book but to some degree it was a labor of love because i've always been interested in how elections and parties have shaped america's constitutional democracy. in 1912 election was one of those rare campaigns that challenged voters to think seriously about the rights and the constitution. it was the climactic battle of the progressive era that rows of the dawn of the 20th century when the country first tried to come to terms with the profound challenges posed by the industrial revolution. now the 1912 election was not a major realigning election or reef founding as i sometimes call them wasn't like the revolution of 1800, the election of 1860 were of 1936. it wasn't that decisive but it was a critical preclude to the new deal and more of them this, it was a contest that initiated

important changes that redefine the meaning and practice of self governance in the united states. as joe suggested the election showcased for impressive candidates who engaged in a remarkable debate about the future of american politics. theodore roosevelt the protagonist who bolted from the republican party and ran as the standard of the progressive party as he famously put it the ball loose campaign. william howard taft the republican president who defends conservatism in this e election. eugene debs, the labor leader from indiana who ran on the socialist party ticket at the high tide of socialism. finally of course, woodrow wilson of the democratic governor of new jersey who was elected president hit a ph.d. in history and political science. the only ph.d. to become president of the united states and the campaign put a lot of

emphasis on his academic credentials. and a september issue of life magazine, a very popular magazine at the time, depicted willson as a roman consul with the learning sitting nearby and is celebrated him in the latin as an executive, a teacher, and a spokesman of the people. i think that says it all. all four candidates acknowledge the fundamental changes that were occurring in the american political landscape and even attempted to define the era question raised by the new industrial order that had grown up within the american constitution system. in particular, each candidate tried to grapple with a challenge of trust with emergence of corporations, the concentration of economic power that post fundamental challenges to the foundations of the decentralized republic of the 19th century. now, the 1912 election of registered and inspired

fundamental changes in american politics suggest the importance of the progressive party. it represents as a vanguard of the progressive movement. it was joined by an array of crusading reformers who viewed roosevelt's campaign has the best hope to advance a program of national reconstruction. not only was it the driving force of the election, not only did it to dominate the agenda but the important exception of the republican party of the 1850's it was the most important third party in america's history. with the celebrated former president roosevelt as the candidate, the most important figure of his age the progressive party won over 27 per cent of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. this was extraordinary for the third party. no third-party candidate for the presidency before or after 1912 had received such a large percentage of the popular vote or as many electoral votes.

in fact had the democrats not responded to the excitement of owls by t.r. and the progressive party and nominated their own progressive candidate, and wilson only got the nomination on the 46th ballot roosevelt might have been elected to a third term of 1912. as the head of a party and movement dedicated to making america over. as it was the progressive party pioneered a new form of modern politics explicitly defined as modern politics. one that would displease the traditional localized democracy shaped by the two-party system which had dominated representative government in the united states since the beginning of the 19th century which are unspeakable understood of recent vintage were born of four critically it financed by progressive party campaign of

1912. having been denied the republican nomination in spite of trouncing the incumbent william howard taft in the primary this was the first primary in american presidential politics. t.r. bolted the republican party, then as he put it in his confession of faith at the convention he stood at armageddon and battled for the lord. t.r. was always very modest. he was drawing support and inspiration from the social gospel movement, this religiously which was no accident, whose members followed the progressive party as a political expression of their commitment to promote christian social action on earth. it was a few well a religious left that was important at the beginning of the 20th century. roosevelt and his fellow board

losers drawing support from the movement define the lord's cause as a new idea at practice of democracy. t.r.'s crusade made universal work of the direct primary or cost at the time because of t.r.'s promotion 12 states selected the delegates for the convention through the direct primary but most still chose them through the party caucuses and conventions were still dominated by state and local party officials. he also assaulted traditional partisan loyalties and championed candidates infect a direct relationship between candidates and public opinion and he took advantage of the centrality of the newly emergent mass media that was on television yet there were independent newspapers, popular magazines, movies were very important and movies were silent but there were audio recordings that were very central to the campaign.

finally he convened an energetic and uneasy coalition of self-styled public advocacy groups. 1912 was the first presidential election which african-americans and women played an important part. all of the features of the progressive party campaign of 1912 make the election of 1912 look more like that of 2008 than that of 1908. now this is not to argue as there may be some historians years we have to be honest, this is not to argue the so-called modern politics was created out of the whole cloth in 1912. this was the culmination that begins much sooner. for the simple the campaign first became important in american politics in 1896 when william jennings bryan, the great commoner, was the first presidential candidate to campaign throughout the country and he did so training and the whistle stop tour became a staple of american politics after that but what is different

about the progressive party was that it opposed systematic attack on political parties and the critical role of the organizations have played in american elections and government. it championed instead a reconstructed modern politics centered on the presidency as the leading instrument of american democracy. the steward of the public welfare as the beguiling phrase. as a party that embraced and went far and legitimizing new social movements and can they centered campaigns. the progressive party animated a reform of popular rule the default over the course of the 20th century and appears for better or worse to have come into its own in the recent elections. both barack obama and john mccain channeled t.r. in 2008. in fact i describe barack obama in the last chapter of my book as the apotheosis of progressive

democracy. i am not exactly sure what that means that we can talk about it. [laughter] it seemed to make sense. in fact of course neither mccain or obama would have won the nomination. word of mouth for the primaries and caucuses. for the rank-and-file activists choose the candidate not elected officials and party veterans who dominated the political process prior to 1912. but roosevelt's campaign as the progressive party candidate went beyond reforming the political process. it was rooted in the belief that the constitutional structure of american government was limited federal power and the judiciary striking down economic regulations as violations of natural rights that simply could not cope with the realities of the 20th century industrial order. only federal power in the form of regulatory bodies there was t.r. and his purpose of allies

could match the power of corporations and trust. our aim, he argued, should be to make the united states as far as possible not merely a political, but also an industrial democracy. now although the high ideals of roosevelt's progressive party campaign were never achieved, it marked a critical juncture between the limited constitutional government rooted in the natural rights understanding of the constitution and an executive centered administrative state that presumed to give the authority of expression to the mass public opinion. now the progressive party itself had a brief life. when t.r. refused to run again in 1916 he doomed the third party to the dustbin of history. still, the platform of the progressive party and the cause its champions would endure it

wasn't as many historians and political scientists assert merely an extension of t.r.'s enormous ambition as enormous as it was. it represented the culmination of a concerted programmatic effort that began three years before. one that included many reformers who were the vanguard of progressive reform. for example, included some breeds social worker jane addams. the highly regarded journalist, william allen white and the famous progress of intellectual herber scrawly who was arguably the profit of progress of democracy and one of the founders of the important journal new republic. all of these individuals played a critical part in the platform creation. among the plans or proposals for national regulation and welfare that would not be enacted until the new deal. there are striking parallels between the progressive party platform of 1912 and the democratic party platform of 1936. in fact, with respect to certain

measures most notably national health insurance, the progressive party prescribed poor progress of commitments that remained unfulfilled at the dawn of the 21st century. now, he stole my thunder by pointing out that this is the first time that there is a call for a national health insurance system and president obama often points to teddy roosevelt as the first president to propose the national health insurance. but this did not detour the proposal when he was the president when his reform ambitions were much more moderate. it happened in 1912 when he was out of power and scrambling to catch up if you will with the surging popular movement in america. now, the progressive party in addition to the social welfare measures also advocated important political reforms not just measures to strengthen representative democracies such as the right of women to vote and the direct election of senators as important as those

measures were but also reform dedicated to the t.r. called "pure democracy." that is democracy purged of the and your influence of special-interest. in addition to the universal use of the direct primary which would pose an attack on the party conventions that denied t.r. the republican nomination these measures included the initiative referendum on bill law that state courts declared unconstitutional, a popular referendum on courts. the proposal was limited to the state court clearly there were national ambitions because another part of the platform called for an easier method to amend the constitution. these are measures i would argue guide reformers, liberals and conservatives alike who carry on the progressive crusade to remove or less in the constitutional distance that separates representatives and

public opinion. now, i would say that the progressive party political or shall we call it constitutional program, the second plan if he will was especially important. above all these proposals unified the progressive movement and assured the lasting legacy. its declaration of pure democracy was exalted as a covenant with the people, deep and abiding pledge to make the people the masters of their constitution. the progressive party dedicated itself to the welfare state at the same time instead for a proposition that any program of social welfare could not be adopted unless it was sanctified by public opinion. the modern equivalent they said of the town meetings. this distinguishes the progressive movement in the united states i think most importantly from the reformed movements of europe and great britain. this makes progressivism a silly

generous american version of radicalism. as jane addams counseled her fellow progressives there was no prospect in the united states where centralized administration was a cardinal fisa that the people would read legitimacy to a welfare state but would not stay attuned to the preferences even the by a cs of public opinion. in fact the progressive party was seriously threatened by fundamental disagreements among its quarters over issues that betrayed an acute sensitivity if not attachment to the deep-rooted fear of centralized power in american democracy. the party was bitterly divided over civil-rights leading to struggles of the progressive party convention for delegate selections and the platform. struggles that terms of whether the party should confront the shame of jim crow. in the and it didn't index of the rights of states and

localities to resolve the matter of race relations in the united states. the progressive party also waged a fractious struggle as a party convention over the appropriate methods to tame the trust and the argument here prefigures the current debate over the political economy. this was a contest to determine whether an interstate trade commission was considerable administrative discretion should regulate business practices whether there would be appropriate or whether that reform was better achieved through aggressive antitrust policy and reforms. militant nationalists as they call themselves led by roosevelt prevailed fledging the party to regulate rather than to dismantle the corporate power this disagreement carried over to the general election the democratic party under the guidance of their candidate for president woodrow wilson and his adviser louis brandeis embraced

the new freedom version of progressivism which prescribes antitrust measures and state regulation as an alternative to the expansion of the national administrative power. they were reaching back of course to the populist movement come to the kind antimonopolism that byron preached. the national's refers to themselves as a neo hamiltons. freedom progressives refer to themselves as neojeffersonians. the ast willson during the campaign would would jefferson to were he here today? the answer was always the same. destroy the process of monopoly and unleash the entrepreneurial talent as willson put of men who were on the make. we don't have to help the man but who have made it, we have to help the man who are on the make. a sign of the democratic progressives and high state of some jeffersonianism calls for a

one-term limit for the president. this was a commitment that wilson would abandon almost the minute he was elected president. in the final analysis than the progressive party platform disguised fundamental disagreement among leading progressive reformers over the critical issue of the role of the national state, over the role of national administrative power in the united states and regulating the economy and the society. now foreign policy was hardly mentioned in the 1912 election but no sooner had willson been elected than this, too, of course would prove a fractious issue. nevertheless, there was one party doctrine that unified the disparate strands of progressivism. the advocacy of the rule of people to read and sensing that pure democracy was the glue that held it together the movement he sought to lead, roosevelt made because of the popular will the centerpiece of his insurgent presidential campaign.

this program itself was highly controversial especially the plan calling for a popular referendum on court decisions. but t.r.'s campaign was even more controversial than the progressive platform. it championed an unvarnished majoritarian. toward the end of september he announced in a speech in phoenix arizona as he put that he would go even further than the progressive party platform promoting the recall of public officials. he would apply the recall to everybody including the president, even college professors could be recalled. t.r.'s -- the watch word of the campaign bus spend and be spent. this was something that t.r. got from the second letter to the corinthians, and this kind of relationship with public opinion leaders then but stepped down when they oppose you.

this would be the watchword of modern presidential leaders. now in the face of this even the great, there william jennings bryan who supported the new freedom campaign populist methods such as the recall by rim assistant should not be nationalized. they should be confined to the states. now, t.r.'s defense of the direct democracy very clearly and used his campaign with deep constitutional significance. in its and vision to establish a direct relationship between public officials and mass public opinion the progressive movement seemed to challenge the very foundation of republican democracy as james madison described it in the federalist papers. the idea underlying the united states constitution was created by the institutional device such as the separation of power and federalism allowed representatives to govern competently and fairly.

now, to be sure, jefferson and jackson and lincoln celebrated public opinion. i think lincoln said one time that public opinion was everything. but they believed the states and political parties had to be critical intermediaries between representatives and public opinion. t.r.'s progressivism threatened to sweep all intermediary institutions off the stage. now come in the face -- whammo on time? in the face of roosevelt's powerful challenge to the prevailing doctrine and practices of representative government in the united states, the burden of defending constitutional sobriety fell heavily on the william howard taft and there is a real sense in which the most important exchange in the constitutional debate of 1912 was between t.r. and taft.

a struggle that flared in the battle of the republican nomination. howard taft didn't take easily to the contest with t.r.. he thought it was humiliating. he was tasked with being the first president to have to campaign for his party's nomination. he also was personally offended, brought to tears. after all, roosevelt passed the progressive sculptor to him in 1908. he was t.r.'s. as a member of the administration, as a member of his cabinet, t.r. taft supported pragmatic progressive program that t.r. had pushed while he was in the white house between 1901 and 1909 when roosevelt worked for the specific proposals such as the hepburn act moderate real road reform within existing constitutional boundaries and with the cooperation of the republican party. for example they played an

important role as the hepburn act was written yet taft found his own efforts to carry on the pragmatic constitutional tradition of reform, the object of scorn is, the victim of t.r.'s celebration of pure democracy to be deposed his attack on the party convention, the courts and the constitutional amendment process, taft was publicly condemned as a conservative. and with the pressing of the progressive movement, this was a pejorative label, signifying that he was the enemy of the people. but taft eventually embraced the charge of conservatism that was leveled against. he was a progressive conservative to be in the battle for the gop in federal speeches he excoriated progressive party's attempt as he put to tear down all of the checks and balances of a well adjusted democratic constitutional

representative government. past defense of the constitution and would support. at the same time, he insisted that the progressive party's attack on representative government on the very idea of representation called for a new idea of republican conservatism. one that was not printed in the defensive business as formulated by william mckinley and dear to the republican party. one that was more in defense of the whiggish understanding of ordered liberty. as he put it, they're real usefulness of the republican party consisted in its conservative tendencies to preserve constitutional government. the most sacred duty of the conservatives, he said, was to uphold the courts. it was unthinkable, he told the audience in boston massachusetts that roosevelt would seriously propose to have a site on

questions involving the construction of the constitution despite kafta's indictment -- taft's indictment that such a bold campaign would kill him politically it wasn't roosevelt, but taft who suffered a humiliating defeat. t.r. thrashed him in the primary contest even the primary contest of ohio, which was taft's home state. and in the general election, taft won only two states, utah and vermont, and as jill put it, 23.2% of the popular vote. as those utah also goes vermont. this became the predawn of constitutional sobriety. t.r. the fact that he came in second to wilson was strong in his dominance presence in the campaign signaled the birth of

modern mass democracy which became part of the living constitution during the 1930's. in fact, by t.r.'s response or by the response to t.r.'s insurgency, wilson, too, towards the end of the campaign began to chant and massive opinions and when he was elected president, he governed as a new national list rather than as a new freedom progressive. therefore he transformed the democratic party and american politics. now, taft and willson, as well as most democrats and republicans, were surprised that t.r.'s provocative campaign for a pure democracy was so well received in many parts of the country. communicated to the voters directly through the new mass media independent newspapers and popular magazines for the muckrakers through audio recordings of t.r.'s most

important rhetoric and in the movie houses it resonated especially with the fastest-growing areas of the country which best represented america's future. progressives insisted with considerable political affect that they did not seek to destroy the constitution. they did not seek to establish socialism and alien form of conflict on american soil. rather, they argued that they sought to revitalize and democratize the constitution to restore the dignity of the democratic individual in the face of the industrial revolution and the hard challenges that through us to constitutional government. jefferson and jackson and lincoln in their calls for reform emphasized the declaration and the bill of rights. the progressives were the first reformers to emphasize the preamble of the constitution. their tasks of the progressives

claim was to make practical the exulted elusive idea of wheat the people which would receive its highest expression in the autonomous political executives free from the gravitational hold a party dominated legislatures and full-year dominated courts. as one progressive journal the arena put it, the voice of the people is the voice of god. hear the echo jackson but hear the echo this means the voice of the whole people. an important fluke to why this was so effective was that it resonated with the americans celebration of bold persistent experimentation and that is what this seemed to many americans particularly since the progressive party received the very important support of thomas edison who endorsed the progressive party in a well

publicized newspaper campaign on their behalf i even found out in my archival research which is why it took ten years to find stuff like this that thomas edison made a contribution to the progressive party. $100. [laughter] his endorsement was worth more. there was a poll done by independent magazine that proclaimed edison as the most useful man in america. but i wouldn't. my kids would have respect for me because i would be considered the useful professor let alone the useful man in america. thomas edison's importance in the campaign plans to a more general point about the election that signifies as an important advancement of the modern campaign is this is a first-time celebrity played an important part of american presidential politics. edison's allegiance was with

fanfare by the new york times and an article with the appropriate headline edison discovers that he is a bull moose constitutional conservatives fear progress of democracy is faith in public opinion. but edison, he said, viewed as a virtue especially as it would free the country to experiment politically. these experiments led to electric light bulbs replacing gaslights by the same token he claimed the progressive party heralded the displacement of party politics by democratic innovation such as the referendum and recall such political experimentation, edison assisted, celebrated rather than diminished american individualism. malling going to close with some very brief remarks will joe has me on the clock i'm anxious to get this tough love for my colleagues i want to close since there has been so much talk about progressivism and

socialism a little bit about the socialists. of course t.r.'s more radical critics agreed that progress of democracy didn't pose a radical threat to the american tradition although they did grumble. they did take great offense of the fact the progress of democracy presented itself as an anecdote to socialism. as an anecdote to socialism when socialism direct attack on that was some was a threat in the country when it can october in milwaukee in the heart of socialist after he was nearly assassinated while sitting or standing in a car outside the hotel waiting to go to the milwaukee auditorium he insisted on making the speech any way. he brought it to a new level and

took advantage of this moment to establish himself as the marker of progressivism p. he argued it was no accident that he was nearly assassinated. this was the work of anarchism. we don't know if this guy was an anarchist but this was the work of an anarchist. it showed the need for the reform movement that was neither laissez-faire or socialist. it shows the need for the reform tradition that would pose an alternative to the radicalism of socialism and what stand between both and reject both as t.r. put it far have said and have nots. t.r. stole the thunder of the socialism the socialist movement just as it was becoming an important force in american politics. eugene received 6% of the popular vote, the most votes and socialist presidential candidate had ever gotten. but by all accounts, he would have gotten a lot more votes but for the preemption of the

progressive party to reply no socialism in america? political scientists and historians have asked this question for ever. i think the progressive party is an important part of that complex story. now we can debate whether progressivism as taft and his supporters argued poses a more insidious threat to represent of the constitutional government but i would close by saying the fact that t.r. and the progressives established themselves as a reform alternative to socialism under circumstances of great economic stress goes far to explain why the 1912 election initiated a critical transformation of american democracy. thank you for your patience. [applause] >> thank you very much, professor speed. we are fortunate to be visited today by not one but three scholars have written

extensively on progressivism in the 1912 election so that we introduce the other speakers today. they will get brief remarks and then proceed directly to the questions and discussion. next we will hear from r.j. pestritto from hillsdale college. he's published seven books including woodrow wilson and the roots of modern liberalism. and after r.j. we will hear from william schambra, the director of the bradley center for philanthropy and civic renewal and senior fellow at the hudson institute. he's the editor of many books including a wonderful series of books on the constitution published by the american enterprise institute and he has written extensively on the 1912 election as well. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> thanks to joe and mount

spaulding on the science center here at heritage for inviting me to comment. thanks to them most of all for this opportunity to reflect on what is a terrific book and so let me first congratulate sid on this achievement. this book will now i think it is fair to say become for the scholars of the progressive era what sid's earlier work on the new deal and party system has become for scholars of those subjects a standard authoritative resource that all scholars in the field have to contend with and it gives them something to a matt. also with the arrival of this book i think it will be clear if for some reason it wasn't clear already that say it is one of the national authorities on for a political development of the 20th and 21st century in america

and that he had certainly become one of the stars of the relatively new subfield of american political development within the discipline of political science. it's also clear there are folks around washington who could i think profit from reading and understanding this book. theodore roosevelt was still mentioned in his introduction has become a topic of some controversy particularly on the right where folks have been weighing in in one way or another about whether or not t.r. and his brand of progressivism ought to be seen as a source for conservative values. while one would think that what we have seen over the last year or so with barack obama's try to implement and extend progressivism would be enough to cure anyone of what i think is mostly a romantic fascination with t.r. it remains the case

that politicians like john mccain, upon vince like michael gersin somehow sees people's progressivism as a cure for obama's progressivism. but of course it's not really a matter of t.r. or obama. it's a matter of the progressivism. it's no wonder that these folks advocate political principles that at times are hardly distinguishable from their counterparts on the left or that they now scratch their heads as we stand at the brink i think of losing what remains of the constitutional liberty of this country. now it is sidney milkis's aim to weigh in on this board respect does he share political argument that i want to make so let me indemnify him here at the outset. [laughter] his book, however does show

persuasively and unmistakably that progressivism, even t.r.'s progressivism was indeed radical and t.r. teamed for nothing less than a comprehensive transformation of the american political order. the project was transforming america ought to be somewhat familiar to us by now. sid's book shows how the two key ways in which the original progressives sought to transform the political system have come to fruition today. first he shows the progressives vision for hyper democratized national politics focused on a charismatic presidency. and second, the democratized politics as he shows plus combined with actual governance that is to take place mostly in a centralized bureaucracy responsible for the redistribution of wealth and largely insulated from public

opinion. now there is really little to quarrel with in this argument and in the book as a whole. but since i am here i suppose for the purpose of getting some discussion going with me bring out just a few key features of sade's book and exaggerate and overreach to treasurys some questions because it is hard to argue with him. [laughter] first, sidney sees that the the drive for democratization and all levels of american government is a key point of departure from the original constitutional principles and she makes roosevelt's push for the presidency and mechanisms of direct democracy the focal point of much of what he says about t.r.. yet he also shows again rightly in my view that t.r.'s preferred means of national governments was a greatly expanded national

administration and greatly expanded nationally administration was of necessity largely removed from political influence. and sidney evin acknowledges that within progressivism as a whole there was tension between the two aims. so my question here is whether there is sufficient appreciation for just how sharp contradiction -- how sharp this contradiction is in progressivism or for how much it shows the strong elite is some of progressive politics. my own view is that progressives emphasize democratization largely because they saw it as a means of in power in the themselves and largely because they saw themselves as the authoritative interpreters and leaders of the public opinion which they could make more of a force in the national politics. what for wilson, for example, makes this abundantly clear in

his essay on the study of administration. but it is an essay where he struggles with how to democratize without having public opinion actually get in the way of expert bureaucratic governments. he wonders how to find a role for public opinion without as he says, quote, suffering it to be meddlesome. [laughter] the connection between this notion and the recent health care debate seems to me too obvious to ignore where democratic leaders claim the authority of the people until it became clear the people themselves were objecting at which point we were told the democrats knew what the people really wanted even if the people themselves didn't quite realize at so i wonder if said doesn't with the progressives of a little too easy on this very significant problem. also i wonder if st still makes too much of the differences between paulson and t.r. in the

1912 campaign even house by my life he's moved in the right direction on this question as over against his earlier works. [laughter] there is no doubt as sade points out the new freedom and the new nationalism were presented as distinct forms of progressivism and that wilson, along with brandeis very much play that hostility centralized in the administration and hostility to willson at one point called sidney de bet de t.r.'s paternal was on the campaign trail. but there can also be no doubt once one reads wilson's large corpus of work going back to the 1880s and 1890's that wilson himself was just as committed as t.r. to the powerful national state and a centralized administration perhaps even more committed. paulson after all under the influence of the german state. he had been fired from his durham uneducated graduate school professors published a

book in 1889 called the stake and even before that he wrote the famous essay that dustin about the centralized bureaucracy of the bismarck pressure and urged the adoption of that model in the united states. from being a defender of the so-called provincial liberties, or states' rights as he allowed himself to be portrayed in 1912 wilson was an ardent nationalist his writings again the 18 nineties made clear even of leading wilson on several occasions to say that he celebrated of the defeat of the south and this wasn't of course because he had racial views. now sid certainly doesn't claim that willson was anything other than a progressive policy doesn't make air for example that is made in the highly flawed analysis of the same question. yet like this, sid's account of

willson relies heavily on willson's 1908 book easily the most conservative sounding of wilson's work. and thus i think the analysis runs the danger of placing insufficient emphasis on wilson's long held status brucker ek nationalistic views. in this context it really is not difficult to see why willson has sid lewd ytoy willson quickly turned to implementing most of the new nationalism after the election. this wasn't a sudden conversion but it was instead a reversion to wilson had been or for his entire life. once the necessity of playing up to his traditional democratic constituency the democrats in particular who were so essential to the domination as sid pointed out once this necessity had gone

away. there is one difference that he plans to on the level of principal that i want to take issue with and i will be my final point of the book does a nice job showing how t.r.'s progressivism was in the mccaul to the original american idea of natural rights, it suggests at least according to my read wilson was somehow less of style or perhaps suggests we ought to take seriously wilson's claim to jeffersonian as some. he uses the excellent example of the assault on the judiciary to illustrate how t.r. was essentially not concerned with the possibility of majority tyranny and protection of individual property rights. in fact t.r.'s speech on the right of the people to rule claims property rights and human rights are opposed to when a mother. property rights did not have a

of the founders understood them come out of human personhood but instead they were obstructing the kind of social welfare programs that progressives wanted to imply to fulfill human personhood. the book's use this clearly in t.r. but also appears to buy into the notion that wilson diverged on this point. sid refers at one point to a philosophical dispute between t.r. and wilson on, quote, the appropriate balance between rights and duties and refers at another point to, quote wilson's defense of natural rights and claims that wilson, quote, read the declaration of independence. now is true in one sense that wilson did celebrate the declaration of independence. but when he did so he did it by first insisting that americans, quote, not repeat the process. that is to say that part that enshrines natural rights as the

permanent in the government. he made, wilson made his insistence repeatedly and in fact i don't believe that it's an exaggeration to say that the primary would mission when he wrote about the government was to undercut and eliminate natural rights principles. his most important book on the principles of government state was written specifically for the purpose of on doing in the american mind of the notion that the origin of government could be found in the rights of nature. in sid's bucha most of the connections between willson and natural rights come in distinguishing wilson and t.r.'s fi win courts. and on the course, they absolutely did disagree. will send simply had a much greater respect for institutions than t.r. did. and this was true not only with respect to the courts the party system about which there was also a great difference. but this greater respect that

wilson had for the institutions was not i think born of some kind of philosophical dispute or greater regard that wilson had for the rights. rather, sharing the sampras of philosophy as t.r., willson simply salles in in the institutions in the political parties the potential to be coopted for the progress of cause to read and checked on the judiciary from the constitutional government the sid relies upon, willson's attachments to the judiciary becomes, or comes because he believes the courts have been in the past and would likely be again in the future leaders in progress that they would help drag when you had a recalcitrant people that they would help drag the recalcitrant people for word into the future kicking and screaming if necessary through progressive rulings that might run contrary to the prevailing conservative views of the day.

if you think about the stunning accuracy of that vision of the judiciary, it helps show why wilson will diverting very little with t.r. on questions of principle, he certainly understood more clearly than t.r. what it would take to cement progressivism in the long term. so, that is the best i can do to generate some questions. [laughter] again, probably by way of exaggeration but what the heck. [laughter] what is really a remarkable achievement. thanks again to joe and the heritage for giving me the chance to say something about it and sid for a great book. [applause] >> thank you. now we will go to william schambra. >> it is an honor to be here

today to celebrate what i think you understand by now is a truly wonderful addition to our understanding of american politics and history. sid's book is not only as we used to say a reporting good political tale. it is also for us conservatives a critical step toward bringing conservatives back into our understanding of american history. make no mistake about it among all the groups that have been left out of the standard account of america's past by the professional historians and social scientists no group has been more neglected, more misunderstood or more disenfranchised than american conservatives. consider how the election of 1912 has been treated in the past by professionals for the past hundred years or so. for many decades the aptly named

progress of historians had a monopoly on that history. william allen white, the great american newspaperman and tea are supporter summed up their version this way. in 1912 was, quote, the conflict between a aggrandized enterprise and its various ramifications of commercial and industrial capacity on the one hand and a protest against that piatt spillage of the other. if 1912 was rapacious plutocracy versus pure hearted democracy, you can guess where historians place the conservatives. during the 60's and 70's this notion came to be challenged by the revisionist historians of the new left. gabriel, for instance, claimed that in 1912 the specific assurances and programs of all candidates, that is taft, wilson and roosevelt obviously the

utterances and programs were identical and fundamental. there was an essential unity that extended to the area of ideology and values where differences between the candidates were largely of the sort contrived by politicians in search of votes seeking to create a useful image. the revisionists didn't challenge the understanding of conservatives in 1912 of course. they were still rapacious laissez-faire reactionaries. the revisionists simply insisted the progressives were not in fact protesting pious pledges as white headed but were in fact joining in at and what they can to call corporate liberalism. at any rate the history of 1912 takes us beyond these easy stereotypes and supplies actual facts about the election by pursuing a radical technique if you want to know the election was about, pay attention to what

the participants said it was about and what sid found, and here i turn especially to the account of the conflict between taft and t.r. in the republican party is that there was indeed significant difference between the two contra to the revisionist historians, but the difference wasn't plutocracy versus democracy and progress of historians. the fact is that taft republicans can in no way be dismissed as laissez-faire reactionaries. the taft republican with whom i am the most familiar, new york senator was a self-proclaimed hamiltonian for his power and believed a much more active national government in this new age of corporations was essential to protect the rights of the people from their overweening power. as had been the case with henry lodge and other taft republican and taft himself, he had been an

ardent square dealer during t.r.'s administration has sid pointed out and tiahrt hoped that route would be the successor in 1908 considering him the most thoughtful and loyal and a thicket of his policies. t.r. was reported to have said, quote, i would walk on my hands and knees from the white house to the capitol to see root made president. but as sid notes, fast and principal division did ultimately developed in 1912 between taft and the republicans. it was though not about the proper extent of the federal power. for neither t.r. nor taft cloned to the doctrine of laissez-faire it was the role of american constitutionalism and as he affirmed in the charter of democracy speech t.r. decided to challenge indeed some would say dismantle the constitution as the framework for focusing and

refining the public will. he not only endorsed the initiative recall the recall of judicial decisions or about this measure the recall of judicial decisions t.r. had this to say it is a matter of mere terminology whether this is called a method of controlling or applying the constitution or a quick method of getting the constitution amended. it is certainly far superior, he said, to the ordinary method of getting the constitution amended. underlying t.r.'s disdain for the constitution, the progressive party platform promised to make constitutional amendments far easier, speedy and simpler than at the present. this charter of democracy platform was deeply alarmed to the taft, fruit and lodge. they understood the constitution to be an essential framework for securing liberty in the face of the often turbulent passions of

democracy. only through their representative government and the strong senate and other devices of the founders new science of politics had americans managed to overcome the effect of democracy throughout human history. only there by could they secure the enactment and execution of sound public policies as well as the protections of the rights pronounced in the declaration of independence. none of the essentials, none of these essentials had been changed by the great changes of the new era in their view. of course sophisticates then and ever since have mocked this devotion to the constitution and decoration. the new republic radical fringe in 1915 for still being squarely committed to this theory of democracy based upon the natural rights long since abandoned elsewhere there can of course be no such thing as a right which is independent of the state. but the taft republicans in

spite of the progressive scorns and in spite of the long and warm friendships that they had established with t.r. chose to break with him over what they regarded as the rejection of the constitution and to fight his bid for the nomination. the story of the republican nominating contest of 1912 is full of dramatic conflict ranging from a low entry to high principle all of which sid conveys wonderful. the governor of illinois was prepared to call out the national guard to suppress street violence during the chicago republican convention and was rumored that barbwire was concealed beneath the bonding of the convention speakers platform. ..

a stand that has been ignored by generations of scholars the text of the constitution comes down to us today almost as it emerged from the pens of the founders. not again in the twentieth or twenty first century would such an explicit frontal assault be launched against our founding document. of course it has been

misinterpreted and abused in countless ways, but it is not mutually contradictory indecipherable document it surely would have been had the progressives succeeded in their central intention to open it to easy and expeditious amendment. it remains possible for americans to consult the intention of the framers with the assurance that they still shape our politics today and it is possible for conservatives to rally around the declaration and the constitution and find the grounds for a principal defense of limited energetic government and decentralized faith based civil society. a few years ago this might have seemed of interest only to a handful of scholars gathered in beleaguered conservative outposts like the heritage

foundation. but today the declaration and constitution are at the heart of what has been called the tea party movement. the founding documents are able to evoke in the public at large regard and reference that the progressives made every effort to strip from them. just as energy surged one again in scholarly predictions of inevitable secularization so the constitution and declaration are requiring divine inspiration in spiteçç of a full century, an cynical. without the critical last cast stand of the constitutional program in republican

presidential context in 1912. as a result of that effort and contrary to the title of this panel 1912 was not the election that transformed america. it was in a deeper sense the election that preserved america as it came down to us from the declaration of independence and the constitution. [applause] >> thanks for very fine remarks. we will go straight to questions. we have 20 minutes. please raise your hand and wait for the microphone to reach you and identify yourself and your affiliation before asking your question. >> just how conservative --

[inaudible] >> taft and the taft republicans would have made modest libertarians uncomfortable. one has to make the distinction between constitutional and legislative precisionism, they were not constitutional progressives, and one would have to put that experience with taft in the context of contemporary experience. >> what interested me is the relationship of the party

system, the traditional party system as democracy, what relationship that has. there is deep commitment to party politics. pointing to the fact that lincoln also committed party politics, republican party acknowledged, kept this idea of nationalism rooted in the state's and localities. the attack on the party leaders have said i know they are not perfect. there are problems at the local level. they are the foundation, some power over that organization. i can't dismiss these people.

that is the relationship with conservatism but it keeps them committed to the system of federalism. >> it is important to underat score that this wasn't a contest between progressivism and libertarian constitutionalism. the progressives themselves, with the founders and principals to understand them, their not talking about the constitution

as it is but brought to them or translated through the social darwinism of the latter part of the century, highly problematic view. >> a question down here? >> to the house oversight committee. the 1912 election you have four parties that split up and the electorate and -- 6% of electorate and -- 6% of vote. [talking over each other] >> it was significant even then.

the democratic party, up for grabs. this will not be a bible party long run, we do not bring these into the republican party. to what degree do they bring the socialist party, it broke the back of to bring them as subsumed in the democratic party? >> it does not begin until the new deal. that will appeal to some of the labor unions but that doesn't really -- that is not a big part of wilson's presidency or the democratic party. that really reinforces the turn

away movement. was it in 1918 that the sedition act was passed during world war i which made it illegal to speak against the war and being sentenced to ten years in jail, and interesting fact about progressivism, who pardoned -- a good trivia question. warren g. harding. the conservative republican in the name of civil liberties and natural rights pardons a socialist who was prosecuted by progressive tests. i have a habit of looking at

facts, there is a legal arguments, the american people liked this guy. this stands for and individualism and that is the excuse given. >> a footnote about the question of taft, when the court struck down, in 1923, by george sutherland -- [talking over each other] >> railing against natural

riots. you get the vote for use in 1916. this looks like a republican phenomenon. if you look at this, you look at harold dickies, the democratic party -- [talking over each other] >> drawing on democrats worry mainly republican phenomenon? >> it is good to see you. [talking over each other] >> i thought i would be there in a couple weeks.

most of the support from this very strong progressive wing of the republican party, it was unclear and we were confused -- which party would be the progressive party? the republicans or democrats. in this campaign because of wilson winning, the democratic party and republican party, not until the 1930s but wilson drew important support from disaffected democrats some of whom -- some key ones in colorado pioneered the juvenile court supported the progressive party. all these people are jane addams and the social workers.

we call them advocacy groups who saw the progressive party as a way of getting into american advocacy groups which become important during the new deal. >> the third party would allow republicans to take away the transit -- >> roosevelt refuses to run at that point and is about progressivism. he is really fixed on europe. that is described very well. wilson is governing as a new nationalist. he was praised in editorials for

breaking the democratic platform. nationalism was a live. i can't remember what it was with militant progressives on the platform committee which supported wilson. wilson, a very close election, the tipping point was johnson, progressive governor of california was t.r.'s running mate. might have won the election. he refused to do so. wilson did so. wilson won california. >> a quick footnote, best thing was the first chapter of progress of democracy. this poses as a higher

conservatism to make progressivism delivered to acknowledge it is almost embarrassing. >> i am not as sure that this is a struggle for me. sometimes i think there's no difference between nationalism and new freedom and sometimes i think there is an important difference. one thing in the new deal is -- the center of this case, it was put in mothballs but was determined to bring it out. what i see as opposition to the new deal, there is no difference between this and new freedom progressivism. >> question in the back.

>> former republican party official. to some extent i am interested -- >> what are you doing now? what are your credentials now? >> the taftroosevelt split fascinates me. i was taught that pr felt he had to be traders agenda. i am wondering to what extent that is true or to what extent the arc's more expensive progressive agenda was the byproduct of is being the youngest ex-president's in history and spending four years out of power with nothing to do but feel he had to go back and find something to make life worthwhile? >> the thing is teddy

roosevelt's radical progressivism of 1912 beginning with the new nationalism speeches in 1910 to some degree running to catch up with the progressive movement but the extent of radicalism wasn't necessary for him to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish which was to be president again. if he were merely interested in the political angle, he wouldn't have continued to push the most radical constitutional doctrines that were obviously alienating even his own progressive friends. the fact of the matter is had roosevelt not embraced those radical constitutional provisions and stuck with the new nationalism of 1910 about which my only question is what is new about it, we are all hamiltonian here, a

understand. [talking over each other] >> certainly was looking forward to tea are coming back because he was planning to be his allies. he said i care more for one button on teddy roosevelt's vest than for taft's whole body. we are talking about a 320 pound man so that is quite a statement. it would have been easy for a practical political agenda that would have gotten him into the white house in 1912. so i think historians have always been guilty of sketching this radical laizzez-faire

versus good guys so they end up saying fingerlike it was roosevelt's ambition or taft's political naivete so he fired cabinet members to keep him on. those are ways of avoiding the principal division in 1912. >> coming back to politics, good hunting and the speech referred to for his return, e really felt this was axon and he regretted from the moment he made a statement that i will not run for another term from the time he made that statement he kind of regretted it but it was a hard thing to step back from. he felt very alienated and anxious to get back. a man of extraordinary, dangerous ambition.

one of the most dangerous demagogues we have had. members of the progressive party, fascinating question. why he embraces this, the progressive movement depends on the wave of the future, this was a movement that was very popular and includes people like jane addams who was very popular and getting a lot of credit. is pure democracy, suddenly embraces it in february 1912 and maybe miscalculated betting the progressive movement was the wave of a future. if you read my book it suggests that even though he lost the election technically there's a real sense that he won the election in 1912. even if he was insincere he was

a great actor. well beyond the denial of his nomination. >> time for one last question. >> i am the religion and civil society graduate of the heritage foundation and church history in america. that includes theologically liberal takeover of a wide array of nominations. there was a lot of argument in the presbyterian church paralleling the political realm where you see the denial of authority of various creeds, the doctor and that was not experienced and cynical takeover of agencies in order to achieve

power. i wonder if you studied parallels between the ecclesiastical trajectory and political and if there is any accreditation in a concrete way. >> there is a strong relationship between teddy roosevelt and social gospel. and wilson's teacher was one of the principal teachers of richard e. lee who was the economist, i don't think they saw themselves speaking, but they are very strong at a level of thought and ideas. >> i had never read about politics and religion. one of the things i say to my

students about research you discover things you didn't expect to see. the other thing was how important religion was to the progressive party. a lot of people knew that but most of what i am familiar with presents an attempt to establish governed by administrative science. this populism comes from the social gospel movement. roosevelt was never a fan of it but he is trying to catch up with a movement that he thinks it will be an important parade. we battle for the lord. he is obviously recognizing me social gospel is critical to the moral for a river of the progressive party. it is a fascinating movement.

what i find fascinating is it proclaims to be nondenominational. i have a sense of how to strike them. it is a difficult balance. the sign that it was nondenominational is one of the most prominent jewish figures ran on the progressive party ticket for governor of new york. he was seen at the progressive party conditions to the great amusement of the press singing onward christian soldiers. i can't imagine my grandfather's singing onward christian soldiers and no matter how ramped up. is it is pretty clear the social gospel movement takes power and turn and much of that is behind and invade the progressive

movement. the prohibition stuff. he gets letters telling him it is too friendly to catholics. fdr finished that liquor yard. >> hi am sure you are finding when you come at this material without the lens of the progressive presuppositions about to be bad guys and good guys are, i am sure you are discovering there's an awful lot of history yet to be written. for young people in this audience and the c-span audience who are interested in good dissertation topics there have probably been 10,000 dissertations written on the

progressive party or the progressive angles in 1912, 20,000 dissertations have been written on ads, two or three written on the conservatives in that era with anything like a sympathetic eye towards them. >> once again, this fine book is titled the transformation of america's democracy. our author is happy to sign. join me in thanking our guests.

>> sydney mills this is rather of the president and the party, assistant director of academic problems at the miller center of public affairs. a politics professor at the university of virginia. >> author and columnist and five time presidential candidate pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. he will take your calls for three hours on sunday live at noon on c-span 2. from newsweek's los angeles times festival of books charles kessler, editor of the claremont review of books discusses