>> thank you all for coming. c-span ready? yeah, good. get under way. good afternoon. i'm the director of hudson institute's bradley center for philanthropy and civic renewal, kristen mcintire and i welcome you to today's panel discussion entitled then and now. a special welcome for those of you viewing it on c-span and

over ustream. the title of the panel then and now i confess may be bit misleading if you're expecting a civic pageant with our panelists reenacting scenes from the history history, you will be disappointed. but that town in eastern kansas does have the story past. just a little over 100 years ago on august 31st, 1910, former president theodore roosevelt mounted a kitchen table on the grounds of the 22-acre state park. he was helping to dedicate john brown state park and delivered what has gone down in history as his new nationalism speech. it certainly wouldn't have gone down in history as his john brown speech since the fiery abolitionist who h battled pro-slavery raiders on that spot

in the days of bloody kansas snagged only two cursory mentioned in t.r.'s speech, much to the relief of his advisers i should add who knew that t.r. was one of those politicians who also regarded himself as something of a historian, although the corporations of the day weren't about to pay him fo. it would be described as george mowrey as, quote, the most radical speech ever given by an ex-president. his concepts of by which a powerful federal government could regulate and use private property in the interest of the whole and his declarations about labor and viewed through the eyes of 1910 were nothing short of revolutionary. on december 6th, 2011, president barack obama returned and standing on a platform somewhat

more secure than a kitchen table explicitly embraced the underlying philosophy of t.r.'s new nationalism, why a democrat a party that occurs to the other roosevelt especially in hard times should have in this instance embraced the republican roosevelt will no doubt be explored today among many other issues in this discussion we're about to hear. and we have a terrific panel for that discussion. composed of prominent political analysts who know a great deal about both the progressive era as well as contemporary politics. i'll introduce my first co-moderator for the day, e.j. dionne, washington post columnist that will make introductory remarks and comment on the presentations after they've been made and we'll hear from a couple of university of virginia professors, and jim

caesar, professor of politics at uva. next we'll hear from john halpin center fellow from the center of american progress and finally matt spaulding vice president for american studies at the heritage foundation. e.j.? >> first, it's great to see people here, happy holidays and to those that celebrate, merry christmas and happy hanukkah. i want to thank bill for putting together what is a genuinely fair and balanced event which doesn't always happen in washington. bill and i have been agreeing for about a quarter century on the importance of community and disagreeing about what progressives make of the idea of community for about that long, and it's just great to be with him. i just want to say something about each of the panelists.

sid's book on the 1912 election absolutely everyone should read. on the way over here i was remembering the series of books, some of you may be old enough to remember them, history books for kids that were called landmark books that random house put together and a blurb on the back, everyone who has not feasted upon them has been cheated, anyone who has not feasted on sid's book about the 1912 election has been cheated, so when you hear what he has to say, you will know why you must go out and buy it. jim caesar is absolutely brilliant, and i find myself disagreeing with jim, but it is highly risky, because he's so damn smart. forgive the damn on c-span and yet i try to live dangerously, but it's a real honor to be with sid. john halpin has done exceptional work. liberals not surprisingly are not nearly as good as conservatives are in

remembering, honoring, and thinking about their own tradition. i think by their very nature conservatives are more inclined to think of what a tradition means. what john has done on progressivism is truly important, i want to salute him and also his colleague rudy teixeira. and matt spaulding and i have had a running argument over the social gospel movement back in the turn of the sent century, a he's done great work even though we don't always agree. what you have here are a whole lot of people obsessed with america in 1912. and we'll try to show how that is entirely related to america in 2012. it is the centennial of that great election and this election may be as important as that one was. and so i just want to thank everyone and they know what the order is. i think sid is going to start.

>> hi, everybody. good afternoon. thank you so much for coming. bill, thanks for having me. it's an honor to be here. god bless you for shouting out about my book. a feast, that might be a little hyperbole, but i'll take the compliment. i was not surprised i have to say to see president obama channeling theodore roosevelt in kansas. in the last chapter of my book which was published in 2009 on t.r.'s progressive party crusade which begin with the new nationalism. i suggested that the election of america's first african-american president revealed that the principles and practices championed by the bull moose campaign as t.r. famously called it had become a powerful and enduring force in american life. i went so far as to claim that obama and his campaign mark ed

the apotheosis about the progressive campaign. it sort of sounded right. it seemed after three decades dominated by the strain of ronald reagan's refrain that the government was no longer the solution, but now the problem. obama brought back in full relief the promise and the peril of a powerful strain of progressivism launched by t.r. in kansas. like t.r., obama identified with lincoln measured but radical pursuit of emancipation. like t.r., too, obama presented himself as a transcendent leader, as roosevelt famously put it as the steward of the public welfare, who could rise above polarizing economic conflict of his time, who could rise above special interests,

serve the interests of the whole people. and just as t.r. sought to navigate a third way between socialism and capitalism, so obama promised to be a post-partisan leader who would heal the rancorous democratic and republican struggles over the welfare and national security states. of course, many of the audacious hopes of obama's campaign have been bitterly disappointed during his first term. the attacks from the left have partly been less condemning than those from the right. he has often seemed to be a hollowed out, he has a embodied a sort of hollowed out form of progressivism at sometimes, revealing the soulless progressivism. the progressives celebrated an executive centered a minstrative state that exalted means over end, they sought to subordinate the truth of first principles,

the truth of the declaratiodecl indeed all doctrines to democratic experimentation. to bold, persistent experimentation. disappointed with their support of wilson's war to make the world safe for democracy, a vague nostrum argued that did not live up to its promise abroad and was badly betrayed at home, and attacked intellectu intellectuals, and he attacked them as being immersed in what he called pragmatic dispensation that made them he said immensely ready for the executive order, but pitifully unprepared for the intellectual interpretation or idealistic focus on end. now, had he been around in 2009, he might have applied a similar

cr criticism to president obama's empty leadership in the national health reform a battle that began with the progressive party campaign. he tended in his fight for health care reform, the president tended to spew exhawlexalted principles, health care was a human right and not a privilege for dubious promises of greater efficiency and cost cutting. the highest rhetorical and programmatic aspiration of the health care fight was the public option. my colleague came up with the term. it testifies i think to contemporary progressive rhetorical challenge. can you imagine, caesar and i calling the university of virginia a public option? that sort of has the -- reveals

the problem. although a serious and i think in some respects very impressive effort to revive the high moral calling of progressive democracy, obama's speech also reflects the twilight of reform in some ways. the most effective parts of the address drew parallels to roosevelt's claim that massive disruptions in society and economy, the unleashing of powerful commercial forces embodied by giant corporations requires that the national government, roosevelt had the audacity to call it the national state, had new responsibilities to protect equality of opportunity. roosevelt believed, obama observed, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. it led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. but roosevelt also knew, he continued, that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from

whomever you can. our country, he quoted from t.r.'s address, means nothing unless it means the triumph of an economic system under each man should be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that is in him. for this, obama continued, and if you watched the video at this point he made a knowing gesture, for this, he said, roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, and even a communist. but today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign and then the president listed roosevelt's leading proposals that have become an important part of american poll six, an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities, political reform and a progressive income tax. like the republican roosevelt, and i think intentionally obama dinot invoke fdr, obama claimed that his reform program

aspires to deploy a more effective national government in the service of fair play that is neither socialist or capitalist. that is neither democratic or republican. that serves neither the tea party or occupy wall street. that serve, he summ emed up, th progressive principles that are now interwoven into the fabric of the american life. that's all good stuff. but i'm not sure that obama's own reform aspirations live up to that billing. they seem somewhat tepid in comparison to the new nationalism. he called for the extension of the payroll tax in the short run and more generally for a fair tax code and these are important measures to be sure, but he did not offer a strategic vision of bold progressive initiatives for a new political order as t.r. did, nor did he explain how the land mark health care and financial reform legislation

enacted in 2010, really important pieces of legislation, were the building blocks of a new foundation. the new foundation was a term tried out early in the obama presidency, but he did not revisit it, strangely, in his speech. it is odd one of my sober colleagues said astonishing. but perhaps telling that the president did not even mention health care reform in kansas. it's particularly odd and astonishing because this is the signature achievement of his first term. this is the holy grail or it had been the holy grail of progressive democracy since t.r.'s bull moose campaign. true to his ruthless pragmatism as one journalist put it, obama's address states no high moral purpose. in this sense it resembles more a rear guard than apotheosis of

progressively. t.r.'s speech was much more comprehensive. speaking not only economics but to citizenship, conservation, and america's role in the world. furthermore, whereas obama's speech avoided what jim caesar called foundational concepts, t.r. framed his call for ambitious reform as all consequential american reformers have in the fundamental principles of the declaration, the constitution, and the connection between them. the 1910 speech was delivered at the dedication as bill mentioned at the john brown -- of the john brown battlefield. t.r. condemned the violent tactics of brown's fight in bloody kansas. he compared that fight to the socialist of his own time, but he acknowledged that that fight was aroused by the country's rank hypocrisy. he said in name we had the

declaration of independence in 1776. but we gave the light by our acts to the words of the declaration of independence until 1865, until the enactment of the 13th amendment. so, roosevelt argued, the industrial revolution, a crisis no less great than the civil war, he insisted, required a fundamental re-alignment of declaration and constitution. indeed, a more fundamental redefinition of the social contract, especially a rethinking of the right to property. as he put it in his speech, the new nationalism speech, the man who wrongly holds that every human fight is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, when rightly maintains that every man holds property subject to the general right of the community, to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.

this subordination of property to human welfare was not just a defense of the welfare state or the regulatory state or an attack on big business. t.r.'s assault on property was progressives' hope for a moral awakening as he put it where americans might be emancipation the obsession with he also called it a fetish for rights. emancipated from an obsession with and slavish pursuit of selfish materialism and become more committed to a sense of responsibility. he championed things like conservation and the righteous use of in the bord especialworl because he thought it would strengthen the fabric of american society. it would help americans transcend themselves in a way that would make for a great nation. righteousness roosevelt complained -- e.j. told me to

pound on thepodium, i have sore hands, so i won't do it. righteousness, roosevelt proclaimed, in the final sentence of the longer version of the new nationalism speech which was published a few days later, not made required reading for this thing, in that longer speech he said righteousness exalteth the nation, this invocation of proverbs in the king james version of the bible shows how progressism progressivism infused a philosophy that obama and progressives usually avoid. let me make one final point that goes back to the beginning of my remarks, perhaps as bourn feared the hollowing out of progressivism if i can put it that way was a logical outcome

of its fate of national administration. the fate of this progressive creed, that human rights must reprieve, human rights must rest on the shoulders of the steward of the public welfare. that is a really big island phrase that i still struggle to understand. matt suggested that this commitment to a presidency-centered, showed a commitment to expertise, but i'm not too sure of that. knowing that such a modern executive presupposed, administrative aggrandizement, a kind of statism that they shunned. t.r. insisted paradoxically that the new state had to be connected vitally for public opinion. roosevelt's new nationalism, his dedication and estate building and this distinguished him from

his counterpart in western europe and great britain. people believe that state building had to go hand in hand as he put it with more direct action by the people in their own affair. the primary, he said, in kansas would be a positive step in this direction and during the 1912 campaign when he would engage the incumbent president william howard taft, the first presidential primary campaign, roosevelt defended a full-throated, pure democracy as he called it which included the court decision, easier method to amend the constitution and the opportunity for the people to recall all public official, including the president. as bill chambray pointed out, the staff for awider route for a constitutional sobriety combined with ruthless steamroller machine politics and

the republican nomination and most likely a third term in the white house during which he would have enacted his constitutional program, but roosevelt's third-party crusade for the right of the people could be the ultimate makers of their constitution as he put it aroused considerable enthusiasm. he roused 30% of the vote and it is echoed throughout the 20th and 21st century. most of the aspirations that underlay that program have been firmly rooted in custom, an unwritten law that presidents derive their authority directly from the people, directly from public opinion, and i would argue -- i'll let you make this argument more fully than i. i would argue this is a strain of progressivism and that the nation must be a steward of the public welfare that embodies the will of the people and problematic effort. this was embraced by fdr, by liberal and conservative.

so having said that, let me finish with this. although the legacy of democracy tran 16eds the ideological battles of the moment, its pervasiveness raises profound -- can an executive centered administrative state be compatible with an actism and competent citizen see with social media function as a truly democratic institution with meaningful links to the public? these were the fundamental questions that troubled the critics of p.r.'s new nationalism and they still haunt american democracy, for all the important differences, it was predicted between president obama, newt gingrich and mitt romney. those are the three that i think are still standing. all three are committed, and i would say the presidential leadership and the p.r. mold. they all champion national

administrative power although with many different objectives and they all claim that this power must be used in the name of the whole people. thank you. [ applause ] >> thanks, a.j., for the kind introduction. barack obama's most notable achievement before being elected president was a literary one. author of his final, personal memoir was from my father which recounts his agonizing search as a youth and his identity and the absent father's raised and the adoption of an african-american persona. like his effort to secure the private life, his public career

seems to have followed a parallel search for stable political identity. and the launch of the presidential campaign and spr g springfield, and channeling abraham lincoln whom with obama self-made springfield lawyer. and the tall and gangly was a reference, and following the 2008 campaign, obama was likened to and he never rejected the comparison and he was likened to the greatest democratic leader franklin roosevelt. as fdr had led his party out of the political wilderness and fashioned the political realignment for liberalism. so barack obama seemed destined to do the same to the democrats of our day, that and even more,

now in the latest stop on his modern, political journey, barack obama had slipped on his ultimate model in the unlikely figure of the wealthy, stocky and pugnacious teddy roosevelt. not the teddy roosevelt of the earlier rough rider phase leading from ahead, the charge of san juan hill, nor the teddy roosevelt in his last phase as nationalist, but the teddy roosevelt of the middle period as the budding leader of the progressive which, of course, is the label that barack obama and other democrats on the left had chosen for themselves today. all of which brought barack obama to his roots in the small

town ofofs on watt me, by the vy play in the very place where teddy roosevelt had from announced one of his most famous speeches. obama's speech has been touted as the document that represents his program was the vision for the nation today. it is the platform for the 1912 campaign. what a difference in tone from 2008 when obama preached unity and stretching lincoln a bit, he spoke of a figure of a house divided on itself to stand together. it wasn't quite the lincoln out -- and now it was teddy roosevelt looking over his shoulder and obama made the light of division bright and clear toward malice toward the 1% and charity for the 99. obama echoes the message of the more confrontational wall street movement. in the effort of obama's speeches to burnish that movement's recently tarnished reputation by of all things to the democratic and populist spirit of the tea party. a movement that president once despair at and at the white house asked the millions in his press to vilify, and now he

seeks to leverage the tea party's legitimacy to occupy wall street and i guess we're all populist now. president obama's speech, and roosevelt had a quick reading and i know you were all required to read it, so i did as well and it seems to me more compelling than president obama. it's certainly teddy roosevelt's style was energetic. given in this judgment to teddy roosevelt is almost in the card, for who in this situation is copying whom by coming to osowatomee obama is originator even to be seen as outdoing that. i doubt that he succeeded and for good reason? teddy roosevelt had more time to prepare his address. he was perhaps the deeper thinker and of course, he sought

consult from the likes of -- but questions of steal aside, it was address it. historians tell us that the concentration of power and wealth was in fact the central issue of his time. whatever president obama's thinking, no one, of course, can know, buttes on watt me con vase time and they wills the test of statesmanship and the massive imbalance between what now government now promitiesurce at promises. call it what you will, a sovereign debt crisis. on this depends the fate of the national security and the soundness of the entire economic system and justice for the