In the introduction we are presented the argument that Teddy and Woodrow are ‘in the sport of assaulting the constitution in the name of progressivism’. That may very well be the case, but many of examples given do not prove that thesis.

We are told that each man is in the pockets of big business. While this is certainly is not a good thing, it’s not fundamentally progressive, although I can see why he would think that given the current, pro big business/progressive regime running the US today.

We’re also told how ‘anti-immigrant’ Teddy Roosevelt was, and how early 20th century San Francisco was supposedly ‘progressive’ for mandating that schools taught compulsory education in English. Again, this is not progressive. The concept of teaching the native tongue in schools is the opposite of progressive, and is more nationalistic.

Not only that, but decreasing immigration, as Roosevelt wanted, is the opposite of progressive, and one of the few admirable beliefs of the man. Immigration, legal or otherwise, undermines the native population and moral fabric of a nation, which is one of the many evil goals of progressivism. It’s common sense to everyone to the right of Mitt Romney, but the author sees otherwise.

It is here where I put the book down. These cable-news-tier types often fall for leftist framework of incorrectly categorizing left-wing concepts as fascist, even if they are truly communist in nature. I can overlook this because it is such as common mistake. But this is the first time I’ve ever seen right-wing concepts incorrectly categorized as progressive. It’s truly remarkable, but the novelty eventually wears thin.

To summarize, the book is at best incoherent, and at worst subversive. Prospective readers: prepare to be gaslit. ( )

Reason Read: nonfiction book about someone you want to know more about, TIOLI April, ROOT
I bought this book in 2013 and finally I am reading it. I really enjoyed it and the audio book was good but this is a book that might be better to be able to read in tree form so that you can take notes and look up more information.
What I learned: it doesn't matter who you vote for, government and our two party system is all about grabbing power and taking away our freedoms.
In the medical field we consumers decided we did not want paternalism but as citizens of our country we willingly let government be paternalistic. Why do we do this? Why do we think the government really cares about anything but itself?
Roosevelt, a conservative, was a warmonger, conservationist and Wilson was a liberal who believed in population control (eugenics and other measures to control for poor, weak genetics), compulsory education to take away parents rights to children education (especially of the immigrants).
The book covered so much; racism, imperialism, compulsory education, government control over what we eat, creation of agencies that remove the citizen's right to have a say in government, Federal reserve bank, inflation, taxation.
Some things to look into; Dr. Harvey Wiley and the Pure Food and Drug Act, The Jungle was full of falsehoods and Sinclair did not care about the working man., Theory of a Living Constitution (scary), Birth of a Nation (Silent Film) second birth of the clansmen, Antiquities Act. ( )

Andrew Napolitano's main point(s) in "Theodore and Woodrow" seemed to be that the bulk of today's "big Government" woes can be traced back to the progressive policies and programs implemented over 100 years ago by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. I thought that was an interesting point, and was curious, upon picking up the book, why he thought that was true. Unfortunately, Napolitano let me down in proving the main points of his case.

If you write a book on that topic, you can't get lazy and just say those things. I might assume some of his readers already are believers, so what he says may well resonate with their beliefs and his points might be taken at face value. When people have a strong emotional attachment to their initial convictions, they tend to ridicule anything that runs counter to those convictions, and to give a lot of weight to anything that supports them. So I think a truly good book will try to reach individuals on both sides of any argument, and the author has an obligation to do more than simply preach to the choir, and needs to explain to the uninitiated why his points are valid. That was the weakness I sensed in the book.

For example, he tells us that it was Theodore Roosevelt (T.R.) who turned the Country away from the non-interventionist philosophy of our Founding Fathers, and put us on the path (through the Spanish American War) to becoming global interventionists and the world's policemen. While I agree that T.R. and Wilson did much to reverse our isolationist policies, it's hard to fully buy into the argument that it all began with T.R. The Spanish American War, and the annexation of Hawaii, both were new examples of foreign involvement from that era, but both took place before either of their presidencies. But even if Napolitano's assertion is true, does that mean that we're stuck with that same philosophy to the present day? Should that mean that subsequent Administrations can't limit that philosophy? If not, then the implication is that Napolitano, as a Conservative / Libertarian, is simply making poorly thought out arguments against anyone called "progressive".

An expansionist foreign policy from 100 years ago isn't like some Supreme Court president-setting decision. Policies can, and do, change. I can't imagine President G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld sitting around the Oval office saying they really didn't want to take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, but their hands were tied because they had to follow the interventionist policies of those progressive presidents from 100 years ago. If someone yearns for the isolationist days of our Founding Fathers, it just didn't seem logical to say it's all the fault of the Progressive movement, especially since the initiating event he points to, the Spanish American War, began before either of the men began their presidency.

There are a number of other assertions which Napolitano listed in his book which I didn't fully buy into, and I've listed several of those below for anyone who may be interested. But I felt that Napolitano, having Conservative and / or a Libertarian leanings, didn't do enough to make his points, and simply blamed things he didn't like in Government today on a couple of presidents from the past whose philosophies were contrary to his own. There was no real recognition of how the world changed and would have changed with or without the actions of these two presidents, and how complex the actions and policy changes he referred to actually are. He puts the blame on these presidents, but doesn't address how many of these very changes are Congressional actions, not presidential decrees, and that Congress is at least as responsive to the people, the press, and the party, if not more so, than to the President.

I tend to think that money talks, and as much as Napolitano might want to blame progressives for big government of today, you have to wonder what keeps it big. I thought it was interesting to note that last month, when I first picked up this book, that special interest groups having legislative issues pending in the 113th Congress were especially active with big contributions. Political Action Groups making big contributions to federal candidates and committees in April included the Letter Carriers Political Education PAC, topping the chart with over a quarter million dollars. How might that influence Congressional votes to reduce Post Office spending? Other big contributors giving over $150,000 last month, in addition to the postal workers, were defense firms like Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, sugar farmers, communications companies like Comcast & NBC, and insurance / financial firms like the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, Independent Bankers of America, and Koch Industries. To me, that's what moves the government of today, not the legacy of two presidents from 100 years ago.

(Anything I've written below is just an embellishment of the above. It's more my initial thoughts, more for myself than for anyone else, and even I wouldn't recommend reading the rest of my review).
I felt the book's limitation was that Napolitano didn't do enough to convince the reader that the alternative small government philosophy is the better choice. He was critical of T.R. and Wilson for their Progressive philosophies, and their expansion of government involvement and programs, but many of those changes were inevitable anyway, and Countries which haven't yet adopted those "progressive" changes which he mentions, such as child-labor laws, voting rights for women, an educational system for all children, are those countries we consider backward today, and those are the third world countries which we criticize today for their lack of progress human-rights deficiencies.

Another current government program which Napolitano criticizes is the Federal Income Tax law. That's an easy target. We all complain about Federal Income Taxes, but most Countries have income taxes now, and they were inevitable. In the days of our Founding Fathers, which Napolitano refers to, federal income came mostly from tariffs and import duties. That was enough for the simple society which existed. There was no need for modern programs like a Food and Drug Administration, since people grew their own food and raised their own domestic animals, or traded with the neighbors they knew for what they needed. But times inevitably change, and no one I personally know today goes out to their back yard to grab a few fresh eggs from the chicken coop each morning, nor slaughters their own pig for their bacon, ham, or pork chops. Society evolved, for most of us, we no longer know just where our food comes from, nor how it's processed. So while not necessarily a universal need, as a city dweller, I don't mind having someone looking out for my own good when it comes to the food I consume, the water I drink, and the medicine I take. So perhaps the expansionist ideas of T.R. or Wilson planted the seeds for a Government program like the Food and Drug Administration, but I think I'd rather live in a place with some controls than without. Perhaps this can be considered "... another government intrusion on our liberty...", but personally, I prefer wholesome (safe) foods, water, and medicines, and don't trust that unregulated businesses will compete safely in an unregulated market without some regulations and oversight.

Napolitano also laments government intrusion into our educational system. Again, he argues that government intrusion into our schools is an intrusion of our liberty, and there's plenty to complain about when looking at our educational system. However we can't all home-school our children. The alternative to requiring 100% of our children attending school is to have higher illiteracy, a common problem in poorly developed countries. And again, I like living in a Country of (mostly) educated and literate people which helps foster innovation, productivity, and a higher standard of living.

In addition to the above, Napolitano also included a wide range of other government "problems" which he traced back to T.R. and Wilson. Perhaps the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) doesn't get everything right, and perhaps the EPA represents "too much government", but it was established during the Nixon Administration in the 1970's, and to link it to Teddy Roosevelt is a leap in logic. Napolitano also didn't like the 17th Amendment (direct election of our Federal Senators), since it represents, to him, a taking away of State's voice in Government, but I didn't follow his argument, nor understand why individual States approving the Amendment becomes the fault of these two Progressive Presidents.

So I didn't fully agree with the idea that everything these progressive presidents pushed for were bad for the Country. I do believe, as he does, that the Government is too big, that we waste too much money on programs that don't work, which aren't needed, or are counter productive. But Napolitano made a large leap in logic to simply imply that all these ills are the natural product of these two presidents and their policies, and that reversing their programs and eliminating government from our lives will make everything better.

In spite of the book's title, "Theodore and Woodrow" wasn't meant to be a biography of either President, but rather it was intended to represent a case AGAINST them. According to Napolitano, both TR and Wilson, by their progressive policies, altered the relationship of government to individuals in America. And, as he argued, this did not make us more free or prosperous, but rather set us on a course for massive government. Too often, Napolitano seemed to think branding these two Presidents as "Progressives" was enough to demonstrate that anything "wrong" with the Country over the next 100 plus years was a result of their legacy. That was quite a reach, in my mind.

As I already mentioned above, Napolitano stated that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to keep the Country focused internally and avoid foreign entanglements. He then asks how and when we varied from that path of the Founding Fathers, and answers that it began with Theodore Roosevelt and the Spanish American War of 1898. While recognizing that the book is intended to be critical of T.R., I felt this specific criticism was more than a reach. T.R. was only Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the time hostilities broke out, and it's really hard for me to attribute the turn around of U.S. involvement in international affairs to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. That position just doesn't have the power to influence U.S. policy to that extent, and I thought Napolitano was losing credibility and trying too hard to blame too much of today's woes on T.R., simply because he can be labeled as a Progressive. Additionally, by that time, the U.S. had assisted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and had annexed Hawaii in support of U.S. business interests, evidence of foreign involvement well before the Progressive presidency of either Roosevelt or Wilson.

At the risk of being too repetitive, Napolitano attributes our current federal income tax laws, which no one is going to like, as a legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. However, even as he mentions, the Income Tax was first established during the Civil War, when Roosevelt was only four years old. So no matter your political leanings, and any desire to attribute everything "bad" to progressives, this seemed to be yet another illogical leap in logic. It is true, I believe, that Roosevelt did support the 16th Amendment establishing the Income Tax, but it was hardly instituted because of him.

This isn't to say that I find fault with Napolitano's criticism of T.R.'s pushing the envelope to expand American influence and scope. To Napolitano, T.R. considered the Constitution just a "guideline", a definite fault to any strict constructionalist of the Constitution. Roosevelt did support a number of other changes in his unsuccessful 1912 Bull Moose Progressive Party platform, which called for women's suffrage, an inheritance tax, workman's compensation, a Federal Securities commission, farm subsidies, worker's rights, including an 8-hour day and minimum wages for women, and a national health service. These things have all come to pass, so had Napolitano stayed strictly with items such as these, and made his argument as to why these ideas are harmful to the Country, his book would have had more credibility. ( )