What´s the accusation?

Jim Powell´s “Bully Boy: The Truth about Theodore Roosevelt´s Legacy” is a libertarian critique of President Theodore Roosevelt (governed 1901-1909) and his legacy. Most of it is libertarianism or even neo-liberalism 101. Powell doesn´t believe that government bureaucrats should run private businesses, while Teddy Roosevelt in his estimation believed exactly that. The author harks back to the Gilded Age and the presidency of conservative Democrat Grover Cleveland, when the economy was based on laissez faire and the federal administration was relatively speaking weaker than it became later. Powell claims that many of the problems “fought” by TR and the Progressives were really pseudo-problems. There was no “timber famine”, no crisis of unclean food, no problem with trusts and other monopolies (except maybe purely local monopolies). Roosevelt used these as excuses to strengthen the power of the federal administration over the previously free economy.

So far, no surprises. (I´m of course a great admirer of the progressive Bully Boy. Feels we could need one today!) What perhaps surprised me was how consistent Jim Powell is in his libertarianism. For starters, the author is so strongly anti-interventionist  that he opposes both the 1848 war with Mexico and the building of the Panama Canal. His opposition to federal subsidies is so hard that he is *against* attempts to settle the Southwest, since people can´t live there without the federal government paying for the irrigation. Thus, in Powell´s vision, Mexico would still control about half of US territory, and nobody would be able to live there anyway! And yes, that includes California. As for the Panama Canal, Powell must know that it´s good for trade (which he of course supports) but since it also has an obvious military-strategic use, he is opposed to its existence anyway. Somebody might argue that this ultra-libertarianism is inimical to progress, or even downright treasonous. Something tells me Britain, Germany or Japan would be more interventionist! Who knows, they might even bully a libertarian semi-America.

One difference between Powell and Murray Rothbard (who also wrote extensively on the Progressive Era from a libertarian perspective) is that the latter more explicitly attacks the Progressives for creating an alliance between Big Government and Big Business. Thus, in Rothbard´s scenario, TR was in close cahoots with the Morgan banking interest, while presidents Taft and Franklin Roosevelt were in league with the Rockefellers. Powell, by contrast, seems confused by the fact that the capitalists often supported TR´s administration or had proposed tighter regulations already before TR became top bully. It doesn´t seem to fit his anti-socialist worldview.

For the record, I´m not saying “Bully Boy” is a bad book. It´s written in a relatively accessible style and can be seen as a basic introduction to the libertarian critique of Theodore Roosevelt´s presidency (or even progressive politics at large). However, I readily admit that my own political preferences are somewhat more bullyish…