USA: donkeys, elephants and... moose

Hello ATS!

Many Americans probably don't know that in addition to the two-party political system imposed on them, leaving many Americans with no choice, there was a time when this choice appeared. But it was immediately killed. There was another political force - the moose. True, that was a long time ago.

Republican Theodore Roosevelt was elected Vice President of the United States in 1900, together with William McKinley. The following year, McKinley was killed, and Roosevelt himself became president. His daughter described her father's public image as follows: "A dead man at every funeral, a bride at every wedding, and a baby at every christening." One of the officials noted that he had a feeling that "the president was 6 years old" - so much did he love to be in the center of everyone's attention.

Roosevelt's tenure marked the apotheosis of the Progressive Era, a period when the federal government actively expanded its powers for the first time since the Civil War and Reconstruction. Roosevelt's "Square Deal" rested on three pillars: the fight against monopolies, consumer protection, and the conservation of natural resources.

Until the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951, there was no constitutional ban on third and subsequent presidential terms in the United States. However, George Washington established the tradition of serving only two terms, and breaking it was considered bad form. In 1908, Roosevelt voluntarily yielded the Republican nomination to his Secretary of War William Taft, who was elected the new occupant of the White House. Incidentally, it was President Taft who visited Russia in 1907 and said that Russia had the most progressive legislation in the world regarding the rights of workers, farmers, and laborers. But this is a bit of a digression.

Soon the former and current presidents quarreled - Taft turned out to be a supporter of a more conservative course, while Roosevelt demanded an even greater expansion of federal powers. In 1912, he created his own Progressive Party and ran for a third term. Roosevelt did not hesitate to insult Taft as a "fool" and a "fat man", and his supporters proclaimed themselves "Christ's army", who were going to the elections as to "Armageddon" and "the battle of the Lord". On October 14, during a rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a local pub owner named John Schrank shot Roosevelt. The bullet pierced his glasses case, a folded sheet of paper with the text of a speech, and lodged in his chest. Roosevelt was an experienced hunter and realized that since he was not coughing up blood, his lungs were not affected and there was no danger to his life. "It takes more than one thing to kill a moose," the candidate told a cheering crowd, then delivered his planned "Progressive Cause Is Bigger Than Any One Man" speech as a blood stain spread across his shirt before heading to the hospital. Doctors concluded that removing the bullet would be more dangerous than leaving it in, and Roosevelt carried it for the rest of his life.

When captured, Schrank claimed that McKinley's ghost had appeared to him in a dream, accusing Roosevelt of killing him and demanding revenge. The gunman was found mentally insane and sent to a mental hospital, where he remained until his death in 1943.

President Taft and Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson suspended their campaigns while Roosevelt resumed his. The latter quickly recovered and boasted that he was "as healthy as a moose." This animal became a symbol of the new party, just as the elephant is associated with the Republicans and the donkey with the Democrats.

Roosevelt's charisma was enough to sink Taft, but not enough to win the election. The incumbent president received 23% of the vote and only 8 electors, while the former head of the White House received 27% of the votes, which provided him with 88 electors. The beneficiaries of the split in the Republicans were the Democrats - their candidate Woodrow Wilson received 42% of the vote and secured the support of 435 electors.

Although Wilson followed in the wake of the Progressive Era, Roosevelt considered him inconsistent and actively criticized him. In 1916, the former president made peace with the Republicans, and his "moose" returned to the "mother" party. Roosevelt was considered to be the leading Republican candidate in the 1920 elections, but in early 1919 he died suddenly at the age of 60.

Former President Taft also managed to serve as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1921 to 1930, and his conservative line within the Republican Party overcame Roosevelt's progressive line - over the next decades, the Republicans finally settled on the "right" flank of the political coordinates.

Or maybe America should return to the Elks and their political ideas?

Your opinion, please.

Thank you.

Those were monumental days in America's history. Check out the book "Mornings on Horseback". It's a great biography of Teddy Roosevelt and his family. There should be a film.

Theodore Roosevelt

I've been to his home in Sagamore Hill NY.

VERY cool place to visit.

I highly recommend it.

(oh .. and it's haunted by a servant girl in the back halls/stairs)

originally posted by: ColeYounger2
Those were monumental days in America's history. Check out the book "Mornings on Horseback". It's a great biography of Teddy Roosevelt and his family. There should be a film.

Thank you, I will definitely look for it and read it. I love history. History teaches smart people, but stupid people... don't care anymore))))

a reply to: FlyersFan

Hi! Don't you think that JD Vance is quite suitable for the role of the new Moose?)))

I rail on the flaws and issues of a 2 party system all the time, but even in its current flawed bipolar ADHD-riddled media-driven incarnation is still obviously superior to ANY system of governance other countries of the same size have tried.

It's not perfect by any means but for a country as large and diverse, I don't believe other systems are scalable to the levels needed in the US.

As for history repeating with Vance/Teddy analog, thats doubtful too.

For one the media at the time loved Theodore, we have no such illusions of that ever occurring with Vance. As well as "Progressive" holds a different connotation now than it did in the Bull Moose era.

JD will never be as relatable to the current masses as Teddy was in his heyday.

Even if Trump is elected it will be the last spasm for the true conservative Republicans, there now will always be a 20-30% arms crossed not going to compromise with new "Progressives" that are vehemently against even the moderate branch of Republicans.

With no compromise between the left and the right, the country will always be in an agitated state of flux. FWIW thats exactly how both sides like it, they can pander to thier special interest groups and get re-elected over and over and with lobbying, and these PACs get rich and become influential within their sphere.

a reply to: putnam6
Sorry, but following your logic, America has little time left. Because it is ossified in its delusions and does not want to change in accordance with world trends and progress. This is the fate of many empires.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: FlyersFan

Hi! Don't you think that JD Vance is quite suitable for the role of the new Moose?)))

months ago... i had advanced the idea of 'personification' of the Trump-Vance & Harris-Wallz Party tickets as Rocky/Bullwinkle and Natasha/Boris as opposition team characters

Trump is the charming, tangled hoofed, moose...Vance the pragmatic & scurrying squirrel

with Natasha played by Kamala Harris whose schemes always backfire on her and the spy-team of her & Boris

a reply to: StudioNada

Thank you, interesting opinion))))

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: putnam6
Sorry, but following your logic, America has little time left. Because it is ossified in its delusions and does not want to change in accordance with world trends and progress. This is the fate of many empires.

I know it is your wish RT.

But with your historical analogies tell me another DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC country so young in its development that crashed and burned so soon?

Don't you agree there is no precedence, none, zip, nada, nyet?

Secondly, all the previous historical empires were not so well intertwined with the rest of the world. i.e., only China can challenge the US economically and militarily. Even a US economic collapse or a Sino-American war would likely imperil China enough that it deters the PLA from making overt moves. Russia and China have border treaties older than the US, conventional wisdom suggests IF China and the US ever become embroiled in a war, China would be extremely wary of a Special Military Operation on their shared border with Russia. These realities paired with any overt Chinese moves on the US would draw the ire and destain of the overwhelming majority of the world

Most likely enough concern to warrant China using kid gloves with the US for the next decade or so if not more.

This leaves us with the more likely slow-motion rot, and even with that the rot isn't likely to be terminal till 75-100 years in the future and only if the US continues on its current path.

Historically America generally will go in one direction then overcorrect and go in another direction, and the process repeats itself.

Not suggesting the US gets 1000 years but it will probably be numero uno for 400-500 years and even then it will likely be because there are no nation-states anymore as we have had a natural or man-made disaster that changes the whole world with borders paradigm.

a reply to: putnam6

I, like most people in the world, don't give a damn about some "democratic republic". Every nation has its own path of development and its own organization of society. The imposition of alien organizations has always led to wars. They will destroy you.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: putnam6

I, like most people in the world, don't give a damn about some "democratic republic". Every nation has its own path of development and its own organization of society.The imposition of alien organizations has always led to wars. They will destroy you.

You mean like invading a sovereign nation, right?

Right?

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: putnam6

I, like most people in the world, don't give a damn about some "democratic republic". Every nation has its own path of development and its own organization of society. The imposition of alien organizations has always led to wars. They will destroy you.

Such an emotional response... and I need you to clarify "alien organizations" and for record I was against the American involvement from the beginning, not because I thought Russia's move on Ukraine was justified, but because it was destined to end in a stalemate, and all we did is throw billions into this wasteful effort.

I covered the rest of the world's paths of governance in the rest of my post, which you angrily ignored because you know there is no historical precedence for a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC nation of the size and scope of America economically or militarily. Much like NATO who have a noticeable destain for America and Americans in general they still love those American dollars and the American military strength and security Uncle Sam's bucks buy.

Again all the other historical empires weren't as intertwined with the rest of the globe as America is now ergo your reporting on the demise of the current American empire is greatly exaggerated. Here's the rest of my post for your perusal and let me know where your opinions differ

Secondly, all the previous historical empires were not so well intertwined with the rest of the world. i.e., only China can challenge the US economically and militarily. Even a US economic collapse or a Sino-American war would likely imperil China enough that it deters the PLA from making overt moves. Russia and China have border treaties older than the US, conventional wisdom suggests IF China and the US ever become embroiled in a war, China would be extremely wary of a Special Military Operation on their shared border with Russia. These realities paired with any overt Chinese moves on the US would draw the ire and destain of the overwhelming majority of the world

Most likely enough concern to warrant China using kid gloves with the US for the next decade or so if not more.

This leaves us with the more likely slow-motion rot, and even with that the rot isn't likely to be terminal till 75-100 years in the future and only if the US continues on its current path.

Historically America generally will go in one direction then overcorrect and go in another direction, and the process repeats itself.

Not suggesting the US gets 1000 years but it will probably be numero uno for 400-500 years and even then it will likely be because there are no nation-states anymore as we have had a natural or man-made disaster that changes the whole world with borders paradigm.

a reply to: RussianTroll

"Every nation has its own path of development and its own organization of society."

Except Ukraine, right?

Why? What’s wrong with Ukraine?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

a reply to: Dalamax

Because Putin signed an agreement to recognize it's sovereignty and not to invade and then reneged on both those things?

a reply to: RussianTroll

How's that one party, one dictator, system going for you guys?

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Many Americans probably don't know that in addition to the two-party political system imposed on them, leaving many Americans with no choice

There were 6 people on the ballot for President in 2020.

Calling it a 'two-party system' might even be illegal. Along the same idea that you can't tell someone the wrong date for the election. It's Election Interference giving someone false information about the election.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: ColeYounger2
Those were monumental days in America's history. Check out the book "Mornings on Horseback". It's a great biography of Teddy Roosevelt and his family. There should be a film.

Thank you, I will definitely look for it and read it. I love history. History teaches smart people, but stupid people... don't care anymore))))

Call me Stup then.
( I'm not upset. I know you just like to provoke discussion. )

The way I see it : one needs to go beyond what is knowable from personal experience, and make the classic "leap-of-faith", to believe in a book written by some stranger.

"Knowing history" therefore, in my view, is the equivalent of believing in somebody else's version of what happened.
It's a belief, and not any kind of personal truth.

I don't know, but suspect that the "history" of many things, like WW1, WW2, the Spanish-Flu, etc, is probably taught differently in different nations, like Japan, China, Philippines, Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, USA, Turkey, etc ...

A whole bunch of different stories perhaps ?

A work colleague read the autobiography of Joseph Biden, and said he seems like a great guy.
No really lol !

Have you seen the new style of yoobytooby vids, where they question much of our history ?
Very interesting.
I can link a few if interested.