William Howard Taft served during the Progressive Era, a period of American history between the assassination of William McKinley on September 14, 1901, and the American entry into World War 1 on April 6, 1917. The period, defined by a drastic increase in economic reform and pro-labor policies on the part of the federal government, contained 3 presidents: Theodore Roosevelt, Taft himself, and Woodrow Wilson. Of these 3 leaders, I have always considered Taft the greatest. The reasons I prefer Taft to his predecessor and successor will become apparent as this article continues.
Taft replaced Roosevelt as president on March 4, 1909. Aside from successful tenures as governor of the Philippines (1900 - 1904) and secretary of war (1904 - 1906), Taft had very little experience as an executive official. Most of his prior offices were in the judicial branch; Taft was a lawyer and judge by profession, and his main aspiration was always just to be a member of the Supreme Court. Despite this, he would prove to be an extremely successful and under-appreciated president.
Roosevelt, Taft's immediate predecessor, is often depicted as one of the great economic reformers in American history. Many have labeled him the father of the Progressive Era and have lauded him as a prolific trustbuster. Despite this, Taft did more to advance the cause of economic and political realignment than Roosevelt did. For starters, Roosevelt only sued 40 monopolies and believed that there was a serious distinction between good monopolies and bad monopolies. That second belief actually separated Roosevelt from other presidents with antitrust policies, such as Benjamin Harrison, whose Sherman Antitrust Act requires the prosecution of all monopolies, not just ones the president arbitrarily dubbed "bad".
Meanwhile, Taft, despite being depicted as a "conservative" by mainstream historians, didn't believe in such a difference. He believed that all monopolies were bad. This understanding spilled over into a much more effective, robust set of anti-monopolistic measures than any of his predecessors implemented. As previously mentioned, Roosevelt only sued 40 monopolies, while Taft sued twice that number of monopolies, filing suits against 80 of them.
Other significant economic reforms were instituted and supported by the Taft Administration. For example, Taft implemented numerous new regulations on the railroad industry. Taft also separated the Department of Labor and Commerce, a government agency founded by Roosevelt, into two distinct organizations. In doing this, he established the modern positions of secretary of labor and secretary of commerce. Pulling the organization apart and setting up two different agencies also made said agencies more efficient, as they no longer had to deal with the obligations of the rest of the group.
During Taft's presidency, immense debate surrounded two proposed amendments to the constitution. The first debate centered around what would become the 16th Amendment. This provision explicitly permits the federal government to pass income taxes. I agree with this reform, as creating new taxes increases the amount of funds for important government projects. The second proposal would wind up becoming the 17th Amendment, which requires that Senators be elected by the people, rather than state legislatures. I also like this policy. Taft fervently supported both of these measures. In fact, one of his last actions in office was to pass one of the first income taxes in American history as a response to the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Before I move on with my analysis of the Taft White House, I'd like to address one argument against the 17th Amendment: A lot of people strongly oppose the 17th Amendment, saying that it strengthens the power of the federal government and suppresses the states. Their basic logic is that the House of Representatives was meant to represent the interests of the people, while the Senate was meant to represent the interests of the state legislatures. Hence, giving the people control of who is in the Senate inhibits the will of state governments.
This argument is predicated on the belief that the people and the federal government have the same interests and that the people's interests are opposed to the interests of their state's legislature. However, the members of those legislatures were elected by the people, so it follows that these two groups would have the same, or at least similar, interests.
Returning to Taft, I also think that Taft had a great foreign policy. Taft initiated Dollar Diplomacy, in which he vigorously encouraged American businesses to set up shop in other countries. The project proved to be extremely beneficial, as it simultaneously created trade relations between the US and several countries that had previously been closed off to America and strengthened said countries' economies. Taft also sent economic aid to Honduras to help it pay off its debt.
My only criticisms of Taft revolve around his support of a dictatorship in Nicaragua and his decrease in tariffs. Overall, however, he helped democratize the Senate, was a strong proponent of economic reform, improved America's trade relations, and assisted developing nations.
Comments
Post a Comment