Chuck Baldwin on his heroes

Chuck Baldwin recently penned an article about his historical heroes, which includes his favorite presidents, founding fathers, Christians, and southerners. Some of the picks that may raise Constitutionalist and Libertarian eyebrows include John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

How can anyone not like Teddy Roosevelt? He is an American legend, the hero of San Juan Hill, and an American icon.

I believe Teddy Roosevelt had a noble reason for his conservation policies, and in some ways, those policies were worthwhile. Obviously, however, those very same policies have evolved into little more than additional tools for Big Government in modern America.

Dr. Baldwin also has some harsh criticism for a few U.S. Presidents, though:

For the record, I score Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson as being America’s worst Presidents. On one hand, I credit Lincoln with breaking up the two-party monopoly prevalent in his day. We have not seen a Whig in a while. In this respect, I wish someone today could be another Lincoln and somehow break up the current two-party monopoly that plagues our country, because the party that replaced the Whigs (the Republican Party) is worse than the Whigs ever were. As President, however, Lincoln was a disaster. I encourage anyone wanting an honest, objective analysis of Lincoln’s Presidency to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s two masterpieces, “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked.”

Woodrow Wilson continued the collectivist, Big-Government policies of Lincoln and helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and many other monstrosities. He also paved the way for the United Nations and other entities designed to steal America’s liberty and independence.

Baldwin seems to have picked each of the individuals for a single aspect of their character or lives, rather than their overall effect on history. He cited Theodore Roosevelt’s personality while dismissing his policies as harmful and supportive of big-government. He also cited Ronald Reagan but then went on to cite his neoconservative policies,especially in his second term.

43 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin on his heroes

  1. Trent Hill Post author

    I really cringed at his citation of John Adams. And the fact that he didnt mention Calvin Coolidge OR Grover Cleveland.

  2. Jared

    The more Baldwin talks/writes the more I lean toward writing in “None of the Above”.

  3. Trent Hill Post author

    Jared,

    Whats so bad about THIS column? Baldwin says he likes John Adams, but has opposed the Patriot Act, Real ID Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. He says he appreciates Teddy Roosevelt, but then dismisses most of his policy as big-government corporatism. He says he liked Ronald Reagan,but because dissillusioned around the second term–something Ron Paul also did.

    Exactly WHAT did Baldwin do wrong in this column?

  4. Jared

    How can those be his “heroes” if they really aren’t his heroes? It doesn’t really make sense. It’s like saying “George W. Bush is my hero because he acts like a cowboy and is a moron, but he’s a fascist.”

    Are John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan really his heroes or not?

  5. RedPhillips

    I saw an e-mail circulating already about this. And I said then, some of this is going to be a problem.

    Admiring certain aspects of people does not mean you like the whole package. Or you might admire someone superficially or the persona more than the actual historical figure.

    I got the feeling he was trying to clean up the Lincoln mess with this, but at the same time he might have created some other messes.

  6. RedPhillips

    Oops. That was the version I cut before I expanded on it. Here is what I meant to post.

    I saw an e-mail circulating already about this. And I said then, some of this is going to be a problem.

    Admiring certain aspects of people does not mean you like the whole package. Or you might admire someone superficially or the persona more than the actual historical figure. Like one could admire TR for being a man’s man, without admiring that he thought an occasional war was a good thing. Or one could admire Reagan the “Great Communicator” but not like Reagan the too slow to veto spending President. I got criticized in the past by both paleocons and southern partisans because I said I admired Noah Webster. Well I admire his devout Christianity. That doesn’t mean I admire his Yankee biased dictionary or his general federalism. Give Baldwin a chance to explain himself before we castigate him for violating orthodoxy.

    I got the feeling he was partially trying to clean up the Lincoln mess with this article, but at the same time he might have created some other messes.

    I’m sure G.E. will have a field day with it.

  7. thearmyranger31

    It may only be 10,000 members so far, with 6,500 in the military, but the Whigs ARE back. And at some point, the Whigs will be numerous enough that Baldwin will notice.

    http://www.modernwhig.org
    The Modern Whig Party — For the rest of us

  8. tertiarypander

    That heroes’ report certainly is testosterone-laced. When will Baldwin give the world his
    report of his all-time favorite “heroines”? I can
    hardly wait.

  9. G.E.

    John Adams is a saint compared to Theodore Roosevelt.

    This is really, really inexcusable. It shows a penchant for fascism or, more likely, ignorance. Neither of which are suitable for a good presidential candidate.

    “How can anyone not like Teddy Roosevelt?”

    Seriously? This is a truly disgusting question to pose. I could list maybe 100 reasons, but it’s ridiculous that I’d even need to. Baldwin should read Jim Powell’s Bully Boy. It’s truly sad that Baldwin and McCain share T.R., America’s first real neocon, as a “hero.”

    Baldwin is so bad as of late I’m leaning back to Barr. When I said I’d never vote for Barr, I did not know Baldwin would make such repulsive statements.

  10. G.E.

    Baldwin says:

    My favorite Presidents would include George Washington, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Washington is far and away the greatest President America has ever had.

    Washington the greatest? He was a tyrant whose evil is only eclipsed by the fact that almost all of his predecesors.

    Let’s see what Washington did:

    1. Crushed the Whiskey Rebellion
    2. Appointed 100% of the initial federal judiciary
    3. Excluded anti-federalists (those who had been opposed to the ratification of the Constitution) from any of these appointments, resulting in solely the appointment of judges who favored monarchy and nationalism as opposed to states’ rights and who essentially overturned the limiting elements of the Constitution from Day One.

    Baldwin ignorantly celebrates Garfield for no other reason than he was a minister. The guy wasn’t president long enough to be good or bad. I guess he is one of the better presidents since he died while in office before he had a chance to ruin the country much.

    Andrew Jackson was the first hardcore activist president who was anti-states rights and also a genocidal racist. The first to openly use the term “democracy” in the positive sense. Yes, he (unlike almost all other presidents) did have good points, but you can’t ignore the bad.

    Roosevelt is so bad, it goes without saying. It is horribly embarrassing for Baldwin to cite this socialist thug as a hero. He even celebrates his environmental collectivism that has done nothing but destroy the environment!

    Reagan: One of the greatest inflationists in U.S. history; a lying criminal who should have been impeached and hanged. But he’s a “hero” to Baldwin.

    And as Trent mentions, the exclusion of the only “good” president ever — Grover Cleveland — and the second-least-bad, Coolidge, is the worst of all. Violently oppressing a regressive tax to fund Hamilton’s vision meets with Baldwin’s approval, but defending the Constitution does not?! No surprise, since Baldwin wants to be a dictator himself, banning abortion in Vermont and California, which is something over which he, as president, would have no legitimate jurisdiction.

    Can you tell I’m fired up!?

  11. Deran

    “This is a truly disgusting question to pose. ”

    LOL! Comrade G.E., Always good for a laugh.

    INdeed TR was a racist and an occaisional war monger. But, his trust busting of the corporate elite of his day makes him less odious than say; Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland!

    Cleveland was against helping starving farmers, against workers unionizing, in short a lapdog for the corporate eleites of his day. And Coolidge, lord have mercy! He singlehandedly led the US straight in the economic collapse of the 1930s (Hoover was just a do-nothing who tried to ride Coolidge’s give aways to bourgeois).

  12. G.E.

    Hilarious! Deran thinks that T.R. was antagonist against the ruling elite — he was OWNED by them, silly.

    You are so, so wrong about Cleveland: He didn’t “singlehandedly” lead us into a Depression. The Silver Act did that. (There is no defense for his suppression of strikers, but this one condemnable offense pails in comparison to the thousands committed by virtually every other president).

    Cleveland, unlike T.R., was AGAINST the corporate elites. That’s why he was for free trade. People then were much smarter than they are now. They knew that tariffs only serve to enshrine domestic robber barons — the platform on which the GOP was created.

    You’re also totally wrong about Hoover: He was not a “do-nothing” — he was a socialist who started the New Deal. FDR even campaigned AGAINST Hoover’s programs and for limited government.

    Really: Please do some reading before making idiotic comments.

  13. G.E.

    I’d vote for Charles Jay if the Michigan BTP could get more than 2 people to agree to be electors… Or more accurately, if they could get a full 17.

  14. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    Again ill say – Baldwin obviously repudiates the policies of Roosevelt and Reagan. Adams, he doesnt–but Adams major mistake was similar to the Patriot Act,and Baldwin obviously doesnt support anything like that.

    Also notice that GE gives Baldwin no praise for denouncing Wilson and Lincoln (and even mentioning GE’s hero Dilorenzo).

  15. Trent Hill Post author

    And he is obviously pointing to specifics in each character, although I consider this a major gaffe–saying anything nice about Theodore Roosevelt or John Adams ranks low on my book,and even worse: He left out Coolidge and Cleveland.

  16. G.E.

    I originally typed up something about him agreeing about Lincoln and Wilson, but it was out of place. I know he also denounces FDR (despite citing him positively in his anti-Ron Paul release on China).

    Hitler had a cool mustache and was a good rapper. I wouldn’t call him a hero, though. T.R. was nearly as repugnant, and every aspect of his persona was repulsive to me.

    And what of Washington? How was this centralist our greatest president? He set the republic on road to ruin. He was part of the Hamiltonian coup to overthrow the AOC and then proceeded to undermine even the new Constitution with his judicial appointments.

  17. G.E.

    Great. I’ve now come up with an equal number of electors (you and my wife) as the party itself has.

  18. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    Again–Baldwin is appealing to a larger audience. He would not agree with your characterization of George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt, but probably would agree with your specific criticisms. Roosevelt, for all his faults, and even though he was an AWFUL president and political thinker–had a dazzling personality. Read a biography of him, everyone liked him and he accomplished some impressive things. I believe this is what Baldwin was referring to.

    Iv said it before, and i’ll say it again–you need not DESPISE a person personally to hate his politics. I despise George Bush II and Bill Clinton’s politics–but I’d like to have a beer with each of them.

  19. Trent Hill Post author

    Lew Rockwell, like GE with the Lincoln quote, posted just the positive comments about Teddy Roosevelt–with no mention of the entirely negative comment afterwards. In fact, Rockwell did it at GE’s suggestion.

  20. Mike Theodore

    “I despise George Bush II and Bill Clinton’s politics–but I’d like to have a beer with each of them.”

    Same here. I’d drink them under the table until their drunk enough to call off the Secret Service. The rest would be a fun night…

    muahahahah….

  21. Trent Hill Post author

    Mike,

    Bill might mistake you for a woman and try to get with you.

    As for George…he’d probably hit his head on a table and then punch the Lamp’s lights out via Taliban/Iraq.

  22. G.E.

    I’d have a beer with GWB too, hopefully knocking him off the wagon.

    It’s absurd to say “everyone” liked Teddy Roosevelt. Not even close to true. Robert LaFollette, for example, HATED him. That’s just one of many T.R. haters. In fact, the majority of the GOP despised him, and for good reason. He was a wannabe tyrant.

    What the hell good is there to be said for Washington the president that could even begin to negate the Whiskey Rebellion, his alliance with Hamilton, his judicial appointments, etc.? It’s statist mythology to put Washington on a pedestal. It’s just as with Lincoln. He’s a sacred cow and symbol of the state.

  23. langa

    This is almost as bad as Barr praising Jesse Helms and Al Gore.

    For what it’s worth, I think every president we’ve ever had should be impeached. The only possible exceptions would be Cleveland, Coolidge, and Harding.

  24. chinese_conservative

    I am not sure any president truly belongs on the list of heroes. But the fact is that even people of the same political philosophy often disagree on heroes. For example Ron Paul and I consider Martin Luther King, Jr. as heroes even though several Ron Paul supporters disagree.

  25. G.E.

    For what it’s worth, I think every president we’ve ever had should be impeached. The only possible exceptions would be Cleveland, Coolidge, and Harding.

    This is very true. The original ratifiers of the Constitution thought the president should be impeached for the slightest slip-up. I think having the nationally deified icon, Washington, as the first president, imbued the office with far too much respect. Washington clearly should have been impeached for suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion (with conscripts, no less!)

  26. G.E.

    MLK was a heroic figure with some fatal flaws. His support for the CRA later in life, and his general shift towards socialism — along with his hypocritical personal life — do a lot to negate his courageous good works from earlier in life. His steadfast opposition to the war in Vietnam redeem him.

    Even given his flaws, MLK is certainly a more admirable figure than Teddy f-ing Roosevelt! x10,000,000,000.

  27. langa

    GE – You’re absolutely right about the brutal suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. That fiasco alone should have been enough to demonstrate that this supposedly wonderful new form of government was actually no different from any that had come before it. The notion of democracy as protector of freedom died in the womb.

  28. Trent Hill Post author

    This just in: GE praises MLK, whom many Libertarians and Conservatives denounce as “socialist”.

    See, Trent can do it too!

  29. G.E.

    No problem, Trent. I did praise MLK. He is praise-worthy — a lot more than T.R. is. Ron Paul himself praises MLK. And yes, he was a socialist and he was very very wrong on a few issues. Hey, I’ve even praised Hitler for having a cool mustache to prove the point of how absurd it is to praise completely irredeemable people for one good surface quality. I think T.R. is a LOT closer to Hitler than MLK is.

  30. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    I was simply lampooning the Lincoln quote you and Rockwell picked up on without any explanation,as well as the Teddy Roosevelt quote. Baldwin clearly distinguished that he did not like Roosevelt’s policy, but admired him as a personality.

  31. G.E.

    Uh, no he didn’t. He said “how could you not like Teddy Roosevelt?”

    How about all of the reasons presented here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

    “How could you not like Hitler?”

    Baldwin further justified T.R.’s national-socialist environmental degradation policies.

    And what exactly did he like about T.R.’s personality? He was a pompous ass. A bully boy. The exact opposite of Ron Paul (and Chuck Baldwin) in demeanor. Like Bush on steroids.

    Baldwin celebrates the national-socialist T.R. for being an “American icon” — an icon of the American Imperial State. If there was ever a reason to not like someone, that should be it.

    I would admire Lincoln for his personality more than T.R. Imagine what T.R. would have done if the South had seceded on his watch. He would have been a hundred times as butcherous as Dishonest Abe.

    Theodore Roosevelt is unquestionably the most dangerous man ever elected to the White House. We can only be thankful that he was elected in a time before nuclear weapons, before widespread socialism, and in a time of minimal national crisis.

  32. Trent Hill Post author

    GE,

    Hyperbole will get you nowhere here.

    Secondly, Baldwin said all of Roosevelt’s domestic policies, while certainly meant to foster conservation and probably done with pure intentions–set the stage for big-government. That is a pretty clear denunciation.

  33. G.E.

    I am known to use hyperbole, but I don’t think I used any in comment #39.

    It’s ridiculous to think that T.R.’s intentions were “pure.” Even that is beyond the pale.

  34. Trent Hill Post author

    T.R.’s CONSERVATION policies, were most likely done with pure intentions. Read before rebutting GE./

  35. G.E.

    I really cringed at his citation of John Adams.

    I’m watching this HBO John Adams hagiography, and I have to say, it is DAMN good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *