THE WARRIOR AND THE PRIEST: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt

by ‧ RELEASE DATE: Oct. 1, 1983

Traditionally, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson have been viewed as the great antipodes of early-20th-century America; more recently, attention has swung to their similarities--as expansionists and ambiguous progressives. So a comparative biography was probably inescapable. The chief effect of Wisconsin historian Cooper's relentless parallelism, however, is to blur the personalities of both. With the important aid of Edwin Weinstein's recent Woodrow Wilson: A Medical and Psychological Biography, Cooper posits a young Wilson whose struggle to overcome what was probably dyslexia ranks with the young TR's conquest of his harrowing asthma: ""Heroic struggle became a way of life for him, too."" In expanding upon other, more genuine likenesses--elite background, intellectuality, use of publicity--Cooper also moots differences: Wilson's Southern gentry origins inclined him toward suspicion of federal government, for instance, while TR's Eastern Establishment roots made him comfortable with centralized authority. Direct comparisons apart, there are peculiar, inconsistent-to-incoherent pronouncements. Thus, Cooper calls TR ""the most prominent militarist in American history."" That militarism he attributes--despite disclaimers about psychologizing--to TR, Sr.'s having failed to fight in the Civil War. ""Roosevelt's personal belligency,"" we are then told, ""was fundamental to his political outlook. . . He believed,"" with Henry and Brooks Adams (who had nothing to atone for), ""that belligerent nationalism offered a cure for. . .the degenerative materialism of advanced industrial nations."" ""His greatest achievement as president,"" however, was to have ""acted with restraint and self-effacement to preserve peace and order."" Domestically as well, ""Roosevelt succeeded because leading a conservative party was better suited to his views and personality."" Now we are on still other strange terrain--for to Cooper, ""he did not do much more than McKinley would have done if he had lived."" In the absence of social reforms, Roosevelt's structural reforms--like federal regulation--are effaced, leaving him no kind of a progressive at all. (The sole exception is conservation, where in fact his record is clouded by support of Pinchot over Muir.) Hoping to show TR's moderation, Cooper emasculates him; later he will argue (once more, against unnamed others) that Wilson was not the ""aloof, imperious figure"" alleged. (Though, qualifying again: ""his administration had a quieter tone than Roosevelt's. . ."") Others have in fact captured the complexities and ambiguities of both men--as Cooper's neat, linear juxtaposition does not.

Pub Date: Oct. 1, 1983

ISBN: N/A

Page Count: -

Publisher: Harvard Univ. Press

Review Posted Online: N/A

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Oct. 1, 1983

Categories: NONFICTION