Theodore Roosevelt Serves 5 Terms, 1901-1921

Everyone save Ich ignore the following.

It is not what he did that makes him the worst, it is what he set the precedent for.
What precedent? Not letting Corptocracy control the government? Breaking up trusts which were destructive to the market and the American worker and thereby saving the US from greater trouble down the road as dissent rose among those workers with more radical movements?

I look at all the posts here and everyone seems to be in love with the Progressives. "They wanted Universal Healthcare", "They would make a stronger Military", "They would begin the civil rights movement earlier" and so much of that crap.
Oh, the horror. Look, I'm not sure about Civil rights, but social and economic reform elsewhere was on the horizon with the Progressives and all of it things that've been shown to be needed over time and if they were implemented about a century ago, it'd of saved us a hell of a lot of trouble we've been going through now.

Don't people realize that the Progressives are just the American version of Fascists.
In Bizarro reality. So, they called for regulating the economy, breaking up trusts, worker and citizen rights within a Democracy and fighting the Laissez Faire ideology which is the back bone of Fascism, and they're Fascists?

They want to do what is best for you by any means neccesary, even if that means going around the system and breaking all of our liberties.
Yes, like the right to eat poisoned meat or have a monopoly screw you out of your job and force you to by all goods from a corporate shop at jacked up prices. And they went around the system by passing laws in Congress and orchestrating social movements. The tyrants!

The progressives were in love with people like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mussolini, Franco, and even Hitler untill about 1941. The Progresives allowed FDR to do all the crap that kept us in the Depression not 7 years, like the rest of the world, but instead till the early 40's.
The Progressives were generally always at odds with the Communists, Socialists and eventually Fascists and might I add that many Americans took a novel fancying to the Fascists before WW2 any way. Likewise, FDR was not a Progressive but rather a Social Liberal, and did not keep us in a Depression that would have magically resolved in 7 years otherwise, no. The United States was one of the hardest hit nations by the Depression and its industry and economy collapsed totally. Likewise, where you get the rest of the world recovering in 7 years and recovering from just sitting on their hands and waiting for the market to resolve it is mind boggling. I'd say most nations didn't recover until during or after WW2, and those had been attempting the same sort of thing we were which was beginning a slow recovery out, though to varying degrees of intervention. And what knocked the Depression out elsewhere was the stimulus of having massive build up to fight Germany (and that is Keynesianism in every way the New Deal was, save concerned with the military rather than the infrastructural).

Now this is not all Theodore's fault DIRECTLY, however, he is responsible indirectly. His policies created a precendent that almost every president has followed since. This precedent has sent us down the path so very far, only the people can change it now.
Yes, the path of being a global superpower, the leader of politics and societal change, and getting screwed over economically and socially in recent times from conservative/Laissez Faire policies which, unlike Rooosevelt, deregulated the market, turned a blind eye to social change, and trusted businessmen to do what was right. It's all Roosevelts fault.
 
Last edited:
In Bizarro reality. So, they called for regulating the economy, breaking up trusts, worker and citizen rights within a Democracy and fighting the Laissez Faire ideology which is the back bone of Fascism, and they're Fascists?

Umm, Laissez Faire wasn't "the backbone of Fascism". "Laissez Faire" see the state a "Night guardian" while the Fascism is "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the State". The two stances are fundametnally at odds.
 
Umm, Laissez Faire wasn't "the backbone of Fascism". "Laissez Faire" see the state a "Night guardian" while the Fascism is "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the State". The two stances are fundametnally at odds.

Fascism supported Laissez Faire (or perhaps better called a "hands off" policy, since that's more universal beyond economics) for the individual and any economic facet not nationalized by the government (and the latter basically equates to no worker rights or welfare in both nationalized and non nationalized areas, though not necessarily inactivity in aiding business if they saw a business as successful and therefore worthy. On the contrary, Fascist frequently sought to stimulate successful business, but really did nothing to regulate their practices and what they did to workers and individuals within the nation, which is why it isn't Progressive), which they therefore did not have an interest in. The ideology of competition without interference, or at least interference to hinder what is seen as the outcome, and survival of the fittest as a means to gain the stronger and worthy contendor is a key point of Fascism. Likewise, they sought to promote business interests rather than worker interests.
 
Last edited:
fighting the Laissez Faire ideology which is the back bone of Fascism, and they're Fascists?
.........

Really? Last I checked Laissez Faire advocates support little to no regulations, want virtually no money spent by the government, and want the people to do as they feel freely. Fascist tend to tell people what they should do at every occasion.

So I think it could be said that Laissez Faire and Fascist are opposites.
 
Last edited:
.........

Really? Last I checked Laissez Faire advocates support little to no regulations, want virtually no money spent by the government, and want the people to do as they feel freely. Fascist tend to tell people what they should do at every occasion.

So I think it could be said that Laissez Faire and Fascist are opposites.

There are few "regulations", though. In Fascism, only industries Fascists see as necessary or important are nationalized, those that they don't nationalize are left to their own means, and under any industry or corporation, there is little regulation concerning business practices and little concerning worker treatment. There are investments made by the state, wage controls, and price controls, but there exists an air of Laissez Faire to it because of views concerning individuals within and industry and corporation as subordinate to it and little to no protection concerning workers and individuals within a corporation or industry, as well as a constant stance of survival of the fittest all the while. It is not Laissez Faire by any kosher measure (I was trying to simplify things down as much as I could up there), but it it tantamount to a sort of selective State Laissez-Faire if that makes sense.

And likewise, and onto topic, Fascist economics are at odds with Progressive economics because of aforementioned issues.
 
Last edited:
There are few "regulations", though. In Fascism, only industries Fascists see as necessary are nationalized, those that they don't nationalize are left to their own means, and under any industry or corporation, there is little regulation concerning business practices and little concerning worker treatment. There are investments made by the state, wage controls, and price controls.
That's very Laizze Faire of them. Especially when you factor in the Nanny state.

but there exists an air of Laissez Faire to it because of views concerning individuals within and industry and corporation as subordinate to it and little to no protection concerning workers and individuals within a corporation or industry, as well as a constant stance of survival of the fittest all the while
The Individual exists in Laizze Faire and doesn't exist in either Socialism or Fascism(two of the most collectivist ideals ever). In a Laizze Faire system you succed or fail on your own merits. It's up to the individual, and freedom. In a Fascist system you're property of the state. Part of a Collective group.

You've already admited that Fascist's attempt to control various parts of production through nationalisation and implement investments, wage controls, and price controls through what's left. Fascists(usually) support eugenics and segregation in addition to various prohibitions. That's the polar opposite of Laizze Faire.
 
The Individual exists in Laizze Faire and doesn't exist in either Socialism or Fascism(two of the most collectivist ideals ever). In a Laizze Faire system you succed or fail on your own merits. It's up to the individual, and freedom. In a Fascist system you're property of the state. Part of a Collective group.

Not really. The individual is seen as a cog of the state, but does exist. Likewise, he is allowed to succeed or fail on his own merits without the state intervening. Fascists loathed egalitarianism or promoting it by any active means.

You've already admited that Fascist's attempt to control various parts of production through nationalisation and implement investments, wage controls, and price controls through what's left. Fascists(usually) support eugenics and segregation in addition to various prohibitions. That's the polar opposite of Laizze Faire.

Fascist supported nationalization or some industries. Anything they didn't nationalize was left to its own means and to compete with others. They implemented wage controls and price controls likewise on some industries and in certain areas, but left any business or industry to its own means elsewhere and besides. They likewise promoted eugenics and segregation because of a belief that the strong should survive and thrive while the weak should wither and die due to natural competition which is a rather big point of Laissez Faire in business. Again, its not Laissez Faire by any kosher measure, but it is a sort of selective and state Laissez Faire.
 
Not really. The individual is seen as a cog of the state, but does exist. Likewise, he is allowed to succeed or fail on his own merits without the state intervening. Fascists loathed egalitarianism or promoting it by any active means.
That kind of destroys your entire argument. The Individual is irrelavent to Fascists. They'll take individual liberties away for the "common good" of the people and the state.

Fascist supported nationalization or some industries. Anything they didn't nationalize was left to its own means and to compete with others. They implemented wage controls and price controls likewise on some industries and in certain areas, but left any business or industry to its own means elsewhere and besides.
Which is clearly something that Laizze Faire would never support.

They likewise promoted eugenics and segregation because of a belief that the strong should survive and thrive while the weak should wither and die due to natural competition which is a rather big point of Laissez Faire in business. Again, its not Laissez Faire by any kosher measure, but it is a sort of selective and state Laissez Faire
They support Eugenics and Segregation because it's a part of the "common good" of the people to seperate them from the "inferior" people. Just another form of Collectivism.

Laizze Faire supports competition between business and individuals to attempt to get the best out of all. That is all but pure Individualism.

The two beliefs cannot be much more at odds with eachother.
 
That kind of destroys your entire argument. The Individual is irrelavent to Fascists. They'll take individual liberties away for the "common good" of the people and the state.
The individual is rather important to the Fascists. It's simply that the individual is see as a cog for the machine of the state. They may have likewise taken away liberties, but 19th century capitalism and industry, which was treated with a Laissez Faire hand, did manage similar things in practice as well.

Which is clearly something that Laizze Faire would never support.
Laissez Faire supporters were frequently ok with the government aiding business, just not interfering with regulation. And in many areas and even in large portions of the areas where Fascists were interventionist in, they allowed businesses and industries to do whatever the hell they wanted to.

They support Eugenics and Segregation because it's a part of the "common good" of the people to seperate them from the "inferior" people. Just another form of Collectivism.
No, its a form of survival of the fittest, which is a tenant of Laissez Faire philosophy as well as the whole of Social Darwinism.

Laizze Faire supports competition between business and individuals to attempt to get the best out of all. That is all but pure Individualism.
Fascism likewise supports competition between individuals because of a ideology of survival of the fittest. Those individuals who are strong survive; those that are weak die. That is why Fascism didn't interfere with any programs to promote egalitarianism and why, economically, they really did not regulate industries they didn't nationalize, and did not secure any worker or labor protections in any industry.

So, um, could we get back on topic?:eek:
Sure. The political junk was intended for IchBinDieKaiser to begin with anyway. Not a whole damned discussion.
 
Back on topic? Gladly. Too much Doublespeak going on here. TR would be displeased.

Answer to question of what would happen: America would get a higher standard of living while increasing it's influence in the western sphere. Then, when WWI started, we would be attacked by a shrinking and worried Mexico, forcing us into the Allies. Having smashed Mexico, we would then defeat the Central Powers singlehandedly. That done, the Treaty of Versailles would be a victory for all mankind, ensuring peace forever...
Were it not for the American invasion of Europe in the 1940s, that is. The US would proceed to conquer Europe, led by the immortal and insurmountable Cyber-Teddy. Everyone lived happily ever after.
 
Okay then, let's move to the Caribbean/Central America. Any annexations and/or purchases likely to happen?
 
The individual is rather important to the Fascists. It's simply that the individual is see as a cog for the machine of the state. They may have likewise taken away liberties, but 19th century capitalism and industry, which was treated with a Laissez Faire hand, did manage similar things in practice as well.
And hence they aren't individuals. They are products of the state.

Laissez Faire supporters were frequently ok with the government aiding business, just not interfering with regulation. And in many areas and even in large portions of the areas where Fascists were interventionist in, they allowed businesses and industries to do whatever the hell they wanted to.
No. Laizze Faire wants business treated equally.

No, its a form of survival of the fittest, which is a tenant of Laissez Faire philosophy as well as the whole of Social Darwinism.
Survival of the fittest IS collectivism. Segregation is collectivism. Eugenics are collectivism. I really should not have to explain why.

Fascism likewise supports competition between individuals because of a ideology of survival of the fittest. Those individuals who are strong survive; those that are weak die.
If the state is involved there is no equal competition. And thus no competition.

That is why Fascism didn't interfere with any programs to promote egalitarianism and why, economically, they really did not regulate industries they didn't nationalize, and did not secure any worker or labor protections in any industry
Much of that is simply not true. Just a post ago you even said that Fascist set wage and price controls.

So, um, could we get back on topic?
Sure. This will be my last response.
 
Alright. It's now established that laissez-faire is not the backbone of fascism.

On topic, I think that Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine would strongly support the US declaring a few protectorates (if not in South America, then in the Caribbean). Certainly, TR's experiences in Cuba from the Spanish War might weigh heavily here. Cuba may want to join the US under TR, who would likely want to support that move.
 
Everyone (on AH, that is) seems to be really excited about TR and how great he was, and I'll grant that he was a rather larger-than-life figure, but no one ever mentions his views on race.

In certain areas, he seems pretty progressive (well, he would be, wouldn't he) when you look at his meetings with Booker T. Washington, his comments about black and white Americans both needing to be judged on their merits and all that.

But then, you also have statements like "the conquest and settlement by the whites of the Indian lands was necessary to the greatness of the race and to the well-being of civilized mankind," and "..it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

So I guess I'm asking if anyone had taken that into account coming up with their ideas for 5 terms of TR.
 
Of course not. TR is seen as (on of) the great missed opportunity(ies) for America to follow Europe into the great light of mixed economy and universal social liberalism. Who would want to mention that progressivism was the watered down, still mildly democratic version of Naziism, in terms of racial outlook?
 
I would say that TR was ethnocentric, but not really racist. His ideas (supported by the quotes, thanks, btw) had more to do with civilizing non-white races before they could be "properly" integrated. Yes, he wanted everyone judged on their merits. Of course, he only considered classical Western merits.
 
In this timeline (or with more of two terms) Can Teddy Roosvelt's laws avoid the crash of 29 and the great depression ?
 
In this timeline (or with more of two terms) Can Teddy Roosvelt's laws avoid the crash of 29 and the great depression ?

If there's a World War I there'll eventually be a crash. If Teddy can somehow avoid World War I, for instance by swimming across the Atlantic and putting the Kaiser into a headlock until he screams mercy, then there won't be a crash ITTL.
 
I'm curious as to how TR would have handled the Villa Raid.

Punative Expedition or Second Mexican War? A sort of "If you can't control your side of the border, we'll find a way to make you." not a conquest but a regime change and some nation building?

Speaking of nation building...

Would TR seek annexations of Cuba or other Carribbean nations or engage in nation building?

The only annexation I could see is Panama because of the canal and the massive ammount of capital invested in it combined with it's strategic importance, would TR let it remain outside the domain of The United States?

Bases like Gitmo can be leased. Something like the Panama Canal though needs to be secured.

You never know, somewhere in the future, someone could do something stupid like give it away or something, despite the fact we bought the turf and paid for the construction costs.
 
Top