When fighting for a leading role in a country’s political arena, candidates for president tend to stand a firm position about domestic issues which are pressing for their electorate. Depending on the situation in the country, the candidates assume an attitude towards the necessity of domestic reform and its character: that may be either a radical domestic reform, or a mild one, or a policy that follows and pursues the policy of the predecessor on the presidential post.
As a rule, each new candidate, especially if being a bright political figure, introduces a new view on how domestic issues should be run; and the government period of each outstanding president is marked by substantial changes he introduced (or at least intended to introduce) into domestic life.
The present paper aims to focus on the legislative programs of such historical political figures as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who shared a commitment to domestic reform, and to single out the similarities and differences in their policies, as well as to trace the ways the modern United States President, Barack Obama and the current Vice President Joe Biden refer to domestic reform and tackle its issues depending on the current situation.
The 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt is mostly renowned for his policy of progressivism, which initially arose at the end of the nineteenth century as a response to the vast changes brought about by the achievements of the industrial revolution. Many of the principles, laid out by progressivists at the early stages of the movement development, became the hallmarks of progressive politics onwards. Those principles include:
- democracy, meaning that the government becomes more responsible to the direct voice of American people;
- changes to the municipal administration which led to a more structured system of power than the centralized within the legislature one and which was now more locally focused;
- a higher efficiency of the government achieved by appointing trained professional administrators to governing positions, reorganizing the governments with the aim of centralizing the decision-making process, taking measures to eliminate governmental corruption, and introducing changes into education which led to a higher integration of the student into the studying process and a higher level of interaction between students;
- control over large monopolies by means of trust-busting (supported by Woodrow Wilson) and regulative measures (backed up by Theodore Roosevelt) in order to prevent the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism;
- reforms in the sphere of social justice, including development of professional social workers, building of Settlement Houses, enactment of child labor laws, support for the goals of organized labor, alcohol prohibition laws;
- government-funded conservation movement initiated by Theodore Roosevelt, creating national forests, national wildlife refuges, and areas of “special interest”, including the Grand Canyon.
Theodore Roosevelt’s policy was based on the aforementioned principles, although he confessed not having a definite plan in his mind:
“I was bent upon making the government the most efficient possible instrument in helping the people of the United States to better themselves in every way, politically, socially, and industrially. I believed with all my heart in real and thorough-going democracy and I wished to make the democracy industrial as well as political, although I had only partially formulated the method I believed we should follow.” (qtd. in Beard and Beard 285).
Being both united in their view of the government as that executing strong power in economic issues, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson possessed different views as to the strategies that should be undertaken to achieve success. Roosevelt supported government action to supervise big business but did not oppose all business monopolies, and his perception of what is required of a president called for an end to capitalism. Wilson supported small businesses and free-market competition and characterized all business monopolies as evil. In a speech, Wilson explained why he felt that all business monopolies were a threat:
“If the government is to tell big businessmen how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?… I don’t care how benevolent the master is going to be, I will not live under a master. That is not what America was created for. America was created in order that every man should have the same chance as every other man to exercise mastery over his own fortunes.” (qtd. in Danzer 331)
Like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson claimed progressive ideals, but he had a different idea for the federal government. He believed in attacking large concentrations of power to give greater freedom to average citizens. That led him to a decision of antitrust measures and a new tax system under which larger incomes were taxed at higher rates than smaller incomes, as well as the creation of the Federal Reserve — a decentralized private banking system under federal control. Despite Wilson’s success in the spheres of economy and politics, he disappointed progressivists with his position as to social issues by placing segregationists in charge of federal agencies, thereby expanding racial segregation in the federal government, the military, and Washington, D.C.
Progressivism established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the twentieth century and has been defining the ways America developed up till nowadays. The modern American President, Barack Obama, claims to be the follower of the progressive movement, as he constructs his legislation policy upon the main concepts of progressivism: those of environmentalism and social justice. America’s position in the world political arena demands the reinforcing of its economic and social spheres to restore a positive country image affected by events in Iraq and the world economic crisis.
The main issues Obama and Biden tackle in their domestic policy are: a) economic (tax cuts, Detroit restructuring, infrastructure package for transportation, public works, and general construction); b) healthcare (expanding public insurance); c) energy and environment (moving towards renewables and energy independence in 10 years, creating 5 million new green-collar jobs); d) re-budgeting military expenses (army, marines expansion); e) education: funding for No Child Left Behind, an expansion of pre-school care and ensuring college tuition affordability for the middle class).
However, budget shortages discovered in course of implementing the new policy have raised a wave of opposition towards Obama’s plans and resulted in the necessity for developing “a new strategy for striking a deal” (Mason and Holland). An alternative plan of “public option” — a proposed government-run health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance was proposed by the President, and as a result of debates in Congress, a necessity for compromise solution was suggested by him, stressing the wish “to increase choice and competition through the most acceptable means possible” (Mason and Holland).
As it appears from all the aforementioned, even in cases when political leaders find themselves in the same ideological mainstream, their domestic policy is marked by differences determined by their view of the domestic situation as well as by the requirements of a certain country image on the world political arena.
Works Cited
Beard, Charles A., and Mary A. Beard. History of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1921.
Danzer, Gerald A., et al. The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st Century. CA: McDougal Littell, 2009.
Mason, Jeff, and Steve Holland. “Obama to Address Congress as Healthcare Debate Grows”. 2009. Web.